[PASSED] Physical Sites Preservation Act

[Aligned Planets]

The esteemed delegate for Aligned Planets steps up to the podium.

Fellow delegates,

I do not know how you did it in your young day, but if you went out for a picnic in a wood or a field or on the beach, you took a big bag and you put in all your own litter and waste and you carried it home and you put it in your own dustbin, but you did not just leave it, and I was very interested once when I saw the bins being removed from some lay-bys on a motorway and I said: "Whatever are you doing?" I was none too pleased about it and they said: "We have found that if we have these great big bins they are filled to overflowing and if there is a bin and it is full people leave it round the side and the wind blows, it goes all over. If we take the bins away and put up notices ‘Please take away your own litter with you!’ then it is cleaner!" As a matter of fact, this was in Aligned Planets.

You also have to consider that and it may be that some of the experiments will show which is better—to have bins that unless they are emptied say three times a day may in fact mean that people think they have a golden right to leave things all round the base, or whether it is better to say: "Look! Take your own bag with you and clear up your own litter!" We do not know yet.

The Bill represents the most comprehensive attempt for many years to bring pollution under proper control. It may be couched in dull phraseology, but it is likely to have a greater and more lasting effect on the quality of life in many parts of Aligned Planets than most other measures. We shall do all we can to assist its passage to the statute book.

[Ceni]

Comments? Criticism? Feedback?

[Ceni]

As seeing how crutty the proposals on the WA is now, I was thinking about submitting soon. Unless there is more comments & criticism.

[Aligned Planets]

Jaresh-Inyo, thirsty from much speech, rises to his feet.

Delegates, I implore you not to take up this Bill.

For most of the post War period, following the overthrown of the Second Dynasty some two hundred years ago, the United Federation economy had been in relative decline. Some argued that this was inevitable, that it reflected fundamental weaknesses in our society or even the United Federation character.

Government intervention was therefore regarded as the answer to these alleged weaknesses.

It only slowly dawned on people that the exact opposite diagnosis was the correct one. Government was doing too much, and the wrong things.

It was stoking up the money supply and therefore inflation in order to prop up companies that otherwise would have priced themselves out of the market. And when inflation took hold, it then intervened ad hoc to fix specific costs and prices and to bail out particular companies.

Government—not the United Federation citizens—was to blame for the resulting stagflation.

We had to reverse all that.

Eighty years ago, we rescued Aligned Planets from the parlous state to which socialism had brought it. I remind the Assembly that, under socialism, our nation had come to such a pass that one of our most able and distinguished ambassadors felt compelled to write in a famous dispatch, a copy of which found its way onto the floor of this chamber, the following words:

"We talk of ourselves without shame as being one of the less prosperous countries of the World Assembly. The prognosis for the foreseeable future was "discouraging".

Not for us the corporatism, socialism and central control. We leave those to the Opposition. Ours is a larger vision of a Assembly whose member states co-operate with one another more and more closely to the benefit of all.

Again, I implore you, let us not create yet another bureaucratic entity to needlessly regulate for us.

Thank-you.

[Ceni]

Now what exactly is that speech supposed to mean?

Don't propose it now?

[Aligned Planets]

Now what exactly is that speech supposed to mean?

Don't propose it now?

Removal of the PHPC would allow us to support this bill - I refer you to my last-but-one post. The individual should be responsible for clearing up their own litter in these places, not some quasi-official WA body. The Bill could achieve the same impact by toughening up the wording on the duties of the individual rather than of the State.

[Ceni]

The individual should be responsible for clearing up their own litter in these places, not some quasi-official WA body. The Bill could achieve the same impact by toughening up the wording on the duties of the individual rather than of the State.

Actually, the purpose of the PHCP is to:

\
ESTABLISHES the Physical Heritage Preservation Committee as a non-profit organization to aid nations that cannot protect such sites themselves and to aid agencies and programs overseeing such sites.

and to:

The PHPC shall certify sites as follows:
(A) The PHPC shall convene and any member may propose a site to be considered
(B) The PHPC shall look into evidence pertaining to the proposed site
(C) If such site meets one or more criteria, the site shall be certified by the PHPC.

It does NOT require the PHPC to mess around like you said. True, the individual Should be responsible, but then again the PHPC isn't.

[Ceni]

@Aligned Planets:

ENSURES that individuals shall be responsible for their actions

Hopes this works & that you read and were satisfied by my explanation...

[Ceni]

Comments? Criticism? feedback?

[Point Breeze]

Excellent writing, sir. It's my humble opinion that you're ready to submit.

[Ceni]

Here is the TG for the TG campaign should I submit:


Dear Esteemed Delegate,

I am writing to you for your approval of Physical Sites Preservation Act (proposal ---------- or whatever). It would be a major step forward in the protection of both significant physical sites and the environment.

This resolution would protect sites of physical significance, as well as banning the harming of any way the sites or their inhabitants. If you don't want to do that, then you can create a sufficient permit program that preserves the site and it inhabitants. The pristine beauty of such sites will not be disturbed by commercial activities, either. This resolution would also encourage member nations to permit such sites to be open to the public and to promote tourism.

Go to ------------- to approve this proposal. Thank you for your time!

Sincerely,
Ceni

Do y'all think it would be effective?

[Avaerilon]

I feel you need to be more precise in defining the physical sites; here's a version I would use:

• Natural geological formations of a unique nature, or of special scientific and/or historical significance, as well as having public recognition for pleasing or distinctive aesthetics OR
  
• Natural habitats home to a variety of rare, important or edngandered flora and fauna OR
  
• Outstanding examples of sites, man-made or natural, which have greatly influenced the culutre, history or development of the area's inhabitants over a lengthy period of time OR
  
• Showcase noteworthy examples of ecological and evolutionary processes of various flora and fauna

[Ceni]

@Avaerilon: I did make some changes suggested by you that I hope would be acceptable to you.

[Ceni]

On Friday, January 18, Ceni will submit this proposal unless additional feedback comes in. Thanks for your support!

[Ceni]

Any suggestions before I submit it tomorrow?

[Welsh Cowboy]

Unfortunately, Welsh Cowboy will be voting against this resolution if it comes up for a vote before the whole Assembly. Firstly, I disapprove of your inclusion of the theory evolution within this resolution; i do not believe that resolutions should support certain scientific theories. Secondly, the resolution's definition of protected sites is incredibly open-ended: does not any geological formation or site have a "unique nature"? I doubt two rocks are often the same.

Therefore, this resolution, as it stands, will be opposed by Welsh Cowboy.

Sincerely,
Oliver Black,
Deputy Ambassador to the WA for the General Assembly,
Republic of Welsh Cowboy

[Araraukar]

Any suggestions before I submit it tomorrow?

OOC: Don't rush to submit yet. Set a time for next month or so for that. There are already some unaddressed concerns, and more will probably show up.

[Ceni]

@ Welsh Cowboy: So gravity is not allowed? No cells? Under your view, any resolution that includes animals made of cells is not allowed because it includes a form of cell theory.

Um, the PHPC is also in charge of certifying the sites, and I hope the gnomes are sane, because they probably wouldn't inscribe rocks on the list.

[Potted Plants United]

Um, the PHPC is also in charge of certifying the sites, and I hope the gnomes are sane, because they probably wouldn't inscribe rocks on the list.

A large potted plant suddenly comes to life, revealing a large leaf curled up to form a cone, from which a somewhat hissing voice can be heard:

"And just what is wrong with rocks? In several places they offer shelter for our non-sapient relatives, and are common growth surface for much further relatives as well, such as the lichen. Or do you not consider something worth protecting if it is only populated by non-animals?"

(OOC: Yes, yes, I know about microbes and microscopic animals and all that jazz. But the IC is a plant hivemind talking. It feels a bit put off with the animal-favouring-bias there. )

[Welsh Cowboy]

@ Welsh Cowboy: So gravity is not allowed? No cells? Under your view, any resolution that includes animals made of cells is not allowed because it includes a form of cell theory.

My opposition to the evolutionary reference is because of the controversial nature of the evolution vs creation debate, particularly in Welsh Cowboy. I do not think cell theory is as controversial. However, this is not my major concern, and I would appreciate your response to my other concern.

Yours,
Oliver Black,
Deputy Ambassador to the WA for the GA,
Republic of Welsh Cowboy

[Ceni]

@ Potted Plants United: If the rock has a colony of endangered lichens on it, it might be protected, either under this act or under the Endangered Species Act

(B) Natural habitats home to a variety of rare, important or endangered flora or fauna

And it does protect non-animals (see bolded words)

[Potted Plants United]

@ Potted Plants United: If the rock has a colony of endangered lichens on it, it might be protected, either under this act or under the Endangered Species Act

"But is your proposal not for physical sites especially? Ones without any necessary value of biological life?"

Lichens can be sons of b****es when finding out what exact species they are, since they consist of fungus and green algae in symbiosis. And one or the other can be endangered, as can their combination. We just think we can tell them apart.

(A) Natural formations or groups of such formations, or other physical features which are of outstanding universal excellence for their beauty or aesthetics, of special scientific significance, or of an unique nature

Showcase noteworthy examples of ecological processes of terrestrial, maritime, or coastal habitats and biomes

"These parts would, to us, suggest that simple rocks could indeed be chosen, if the nation owning them would like to propose them as such."

And it does protect non-animals (see bolded words)

"We never claimed it didn't. We merely asked if the rocks were only eligible if they were used by animals."

MANDATES nations to ban the harming in any way of such sites or their inhabitants, or to create a sufficient permit program that preserves the site and its inhabitants, and to ban commercial activities within the park that would cause damage to the parks

"We would also like to point out that the use of the word "park" exists only in this sentence of the proposal, and is not defined anywhere. Is it a left-over from an earlier draft?"

[Ceni]

@ Potted Plants United: If the rock has a colony of endangered lichens on it, it might be protected, either under this act or under the Endangered Species Act

"But is your proposal not for physical sites especially? Ones without any necessary value of biological life?"

For physical sites especially, but the site may be protected if they contain large numbers or the natural habitat of endangered flora or fauna.

(A) Natural formations or groups of such formations, or other physical features which are of outstanding universal excellence for their beauty or aesthetics, of special scientific significance, or of an unique nature

Showcase noteworthy examples of ecological processes of terrestrial, maritime, or coastal habitats and biomes

[color=#008000]"These parts would, to us, suggest that simple rocks could indeed be chosen, if the nation owning them would like to propose them as such."

Yes, but only if the PHPC approved. Most nations (my nation wouldn't, anyway) wouldn't propose simple rocks if they didn't have a really good reason, however.

And it does protect non-animals (see bolded words)

"We never claimed it didn't. We merely asked if the rocks were only eligible if they were used by animals."

Or ANY endangered species.

[Ceni]

MANDATES nations to ban the harming in any way of such sites or their inhabitants, or to create a sufficient permit program that preserves the site and its inhabitants, and to ban commercial activities within the park that would cause damage to the parks

"We would also like to point out that the use of the word "park" exists only in this sentence of the proposal, and is not defined anywhere. Is it a left-over from an earlier draft?"

I'll fix that.

[Ceni]

Secondly, the resolution's definition of protected sites is incredibly open-ended: does not any geological formation or site have a "unique nature"? I doubt two rocks are often the same.

According to Dictionary.com, the definition relevant to this discussion is:

not typical; unusual

Would a rock such as this be considered unusual or not typical?



Probably not.

But this?



Probably.