[PASSED] Physical Sites Preservation Act

[Ceni]

I would probably say charity...

I'll make the edits later, it's kind of hard to make edits on an ipad

[Ceni]

Edited. Please submit comments on final version.

[Potted Plants United]

Edited. Please submit comments on final version.

"Considering how many of our selves, such as this speaker plant, are unique species of our creation, if we submitted the plant pots these species inhabit as candidates for the committee of this proposal, would they be considered "Natural habitats home to a variety or large numbers of rare, important or endangered flora and fauna"? We are not asking this to be difficult, the final draft just made us wonder about this."

[Ceni]

Edited. Please submit comments on final version.

"Considering how many of our selves, such as this speaker plant, are unique species of our creation, if we submitted the plant pots these species inhabit as candidates for the committee of this proposal, would they be considered "Natural habitats home to a variety or large numbers of rare, important or endangered flora and fauna"? We are not asking this to be difficult, the final draft just made us wonder about this."

Sure, if you can make a case for it and have enough evidence to support your position.

[Potted Plants United]

Sure, if you can make a case for it and have enough evidence to support your position.

"Thank you, we will consider this. Good luck for your proposal."

[Ceni]

Sure, if you can make a case for it and have enough evidence to support your position.

"Thank you, we will consider this. Good luck for your proposal."

I shall be submitting this on Sunday at the earliest as I am busy tomorrow.

[Ceni]

I am submitting this tomorrow.

[Ceni]

Physical Sites Protection Act was submitted today.

[Ceni]

In queue

[Bergnovinaia]

Just saw this in quorum... I like it. Approved.

That being said, I am curious if part C of your definition duplicates GAR #72. Culturally important sites are already covered and protected... I don't think it's basis to remove it from the floor, but it's just amusing that it's coming up again.

[Monopolasia]

We believe the maintenance of 'beauty' is highly subjective and as such: the Act is purely a repressive suggestion which, regardless of the outcome, undermines significantly the few who don't support it due to disparate values. Industries will be undermined for an 'artistic' sentimentality, devastating the pivotal of all economies (except those of disorganized hierarchies): businesses. The proposed legislation is a national choice and I anticipate strong rebuttal since the dictatorial nature is contrary to how the World Assembly should promote ethics to business affairs instead of vapid aesthetics.

[Midelov Davus]

In addition to the ambiguity of "beauty", even though I support this resolution, I am rethinking after thinking to myself: Is it reasonable to ask of member states, especially smaller ones, to starve their economy because all of their natural resources or available land are in "beautiful" areas? Perhaps instead there should be an upper limit to the amount of land that countries are expected to protect? For example, a small country situated mostly in the rainforest. Would all of it's land be considered beautiful? Would all expansion be choked off? Perhaps instead, it would be required to preserve somewhere between 1/3 and 2/3 of it's total area. Then it would have room to expand while still maintaining natural beauty to an extent.

[Maynardian Diplomatic Mission to the WA]

This seems like a whole lot of micro-management and a bureaucratic nightmare.

The Maynard Islands does support preservation and conservation. However we feel this resolution is completely unnecessary. Individual nations should be able to decide and determine what can be done on their sites - it is not the World Assembly's job to dictate what we can do.

Opposed.

[Irredento]

Our Most Praiseworthy Emperor takes issue with not only the idea of interfering with private industry's right to do as it pleases with the land it has rightfully been granted by Him but also worries that the passing of this legislation would require Him to allow peasants entry to His personal gardens which, it should be noted, accounts for 95% of the unspoiled land in His nation.

Therefore, the Empire of Irredento chooses to oppose this resolution on behalf of its people on the grounds that it does not please the Emperor to have to step over the lifeless bodies of the homeless not only on public land but in His own gardens. We believe this proposal to be environmentalism gone mad and would only consider some measure of it being implemented if the parts about allowing just about anyone entry to private lands are removed.

[Flugenstein]

This seems like a whole lot of micro-management and a bureaucratic nightmare.

The Maynard Islands does support preservation and conservation. However we feel this resolution is completely unnecessary. Individual nations should be able to decide and determine what can be done on their sites - it is not the World Assembly's job to dictate what we can do.

Opposed.

The government of Flugenstein is disappointed that this would eventually allow very pretty rock formations but a lack of usable space and resources as our population grows.

Opposed

[Laeriland]

The Democratic Republic fails to see how this is a international issue and considers this nothing but a waste of time.

We vote nay

[Espartius]

As a member nation of Gatesville Inc, seeking to bring down this despicable organization called the World Assembly by getting close to the beast, we have acted as appropriately as possible by voting AGAINST this proposal and against another step towards world government.

William Cassius
Espartius Ambassador to the World Assembly

[Ellezellen]

Besides the obvious limitations on industry growth, how else will this bill affect the industry, and in extension, the economy of industry intensive nations. What kind of sacrifice are we making to protect these sites?

[Auralia]

Does the Physical Heritage Preservation Committee have the power to force member nations to consider an area a "site of physical significance"?

[Ceni]

Does the Physical Heritage Preservation Committee have the power to force member nations to consider an area a "site of physical significance"?

It has the power to force them to protect it but that is rather moot considering that sites may only be proposed with the consent of the government. I would probably think that all of the above posters are in violation of the Read the Resolution Act, because I specifically put that clause in there so that those nations that didn't like lots of environment could have a say over this kind of stuff.

[Potted Plants United]

"We have come to the consensus that either all of our plantpots count for the purposes of this act, or none count. As such, we won't be applying any sites for review, should this act pass into a resolution. Unless truly good arguments are made for or against, we will abstain from the vote."

[United Timelines Outpost Number 99999999]

We have come to the conclusion that the risk of an area infected with the Pathogen might be considered a protected site, and thus we would be unable to lawfully commence the required napalm bombing to prevent the infection from spreading. We vote against this proposition for the safety of the Colony and the safety of its people.

[Ceni]

We have come to the conclusion that the risk of an area infected with the Pathogen might be considered a protected site, and thus we would be unable to lawfully commence the required napalm bombing to prevent the infection from spreading. We vote against this proposition for the safety of the Colony and the safety of its people.

Then don't have your government consent to its protection!

[MRWOFFLE]

This type of tree hugging acts are going to screw us over! What you people don't understand is that what we are doing to the environment is yes, bad. But now you're restricting my industries to spread becuase there's a pretty pond nearby. This is idiotic and unconstitutional, in my opinion you're just damaging the human's right to expand and prosper like we have since ancient times. Guess what, chances are this website has servers built over a once "beautiful natural area". Plus now my citizens are PAYING TO KEEP BLOODY NATURE PROTECTED? WHAT'S NEXT, YOU NEED A PICNIC LICENSES FOR THE ABILITY TO PICNIC IN BEATIFUL NATURAL AREAS, THIS IS THE START OF THE CONTROLLATIVE OUTRAGE OF THE WORLD ASSEMBLY HAVING TO MUCH BUSINESS IN OUR COUNTRIES, THIS AMONG OTHER PROPOSALS ARE OUTRAGEOUS AND JUST DISGUSTINGLY HORRIBLE, AND THE REAL WORLD IS HAVING ISSUES WITH THIS TOO!

Oh and what happens in wars. I'll give a little scenario. Lastin starts a war with me, he hides in a weak bunker under a beautiful pond surrounded by cute little animals, there's no way I can attack with land units as it's on an island. I have to bomb it, but that would break this proposal as I'm destroying beautiful natural areas. Then that stupid Lastin president bombs me in my bomb shelter, I die....

So what's fair about that, if I build everything underground under beautiful areas I'm safe from all bombs, plus I can make rooftops "beautiful and natural man made structures that have had an affect on culture" as I make my people obey roofs(a bit crazy I know, but a dictatorship can do whatever.). You can't shoot or bomb anymore in my city in risk of " hitting our beautiful cultural roofs!"

[Eist]

I've read through the comments (which are by and large nonsensical to me) and I have one question: where does the PHPC come from?