[Passed] Rainforest Protection Act

[Republic of Greater America]

I'm voting against this, as my woodchipping industry will be destroyed by this ridiculous proposal. Also, as I keep saying, what good will a pretty environment do if your country is broke, bankrupt, and has no economy?

Your entire economy is based solely on wood chipping? So a couple of hundred incendiary bombs and your country is broke?

If only every nation revealed its national secrets so easily.

Hahaha!!! You seriously thought that my entire economy is based on woodchipping? Okay, seriously, it isn't, and while it's a decent portion of my economy, I won't say what my main industr(ies/y) is. Regardless, you are dead wrong, plus who needs trees? What happens when you have a whole bunch of trees but no economy? A dead, undeveloped nation.

[Legendardisch]

No trees no oxygen no human idiot.

[Neofloydia]

"Our precious wood!!! "
-- Everyone who didn't put an ounce of thought into the proposal.

The proposal encourages building the timber industry on a cut-and-replant basis. Chop a tree down? Holy crap, you can replant it. The proposal simply outlaws downright destructive techniques.

No trees no oxygen no human idiot.

I guess this is what happens when "Access to Science in Schools" is repealed. Phytoplankton are far more responsible for the oxygen in the atmosphere than trees.

[The Remean Lordship]

At the current rate, we need as many trees as possible.

You seem to have good intentions, and use good logic, but part of saving the world is saving its biodiversity too. You seem to have forgotten that.

Everyone should vote yes for this resolution and for the world.

[The Scientific States]

Your entire economy is based solely on wood chipping? So a couple of hundred incendiary bombs and your country is broke?

If only every nation revealed its national secrets so easily.

Hahaha!!! You seriously thought that my entire economy is based on woodchipping? Okay, seriously, it isn't, and while it's a decent portion of my economy, I won't say what my main industr(ies/y) is. Regardless, you are dead wrong, plus who needs trees? What happens when you have a whole bunch of trees but no economy? A dead, undeveloped nation.

Trees are very, very important,

some environmental regulations won't destroy your economy.

[SverigeKins]

Although I agree with the premise and intentions of this act, the first sentence contains two grammatical/linguistic mistakes. "as are" does not make sense. Additionally, that statement seems more like a "definition" than a "recognizing" clause.

I must vote no since I suspect in the future this will be repealed for said mistakes.

[Araraukar]

I find it hilarious that there are more single-nation votes FOR than there are total votes AGAINST.

That's either a telegraph campaign done right, or just a bunch of lemmings who like nice-looking titles.

I think for the most part it's people who don't read past the title.

[Le Royaume Saint-Louis]

This bill is an unnecessary barbaric attempt to harm nations whose economies are supported by the great woodchip export industry. Stop the World Assembly from holding our economies hostage and vote no.

[The Remean Lordship]

This bill is an unnecessary barbaric attempt to harm nations whose economies are supported by the great woodchip export industry. Stop the World Assembly from holding our economies hostage and vote no.

Barbaric?!?!?! This act protects rain forests. If you want to protect your wood-chipping industry, than why don't you create tree orchards, where you farm the trees? It'll work while saving the environment.

Besides, shouldn't economies be balanced, so if one industry is harmed by an act or a downturn in the market, the whole national economy could endure, while one of the many markets recovers?

[Retired WerePenguins]

I don't want to excessively nit pick, but after giving this resolution far too much thought that it deserves, I think that it should have been directed against the the uranium mining industry as they are the ones who generally clear cut / slash and burn entire regions to get at the resources under the forest.

Then again, the thought of regulating rain forests for a nation in the Antarctic is something that easily can blow your mind. You should try it.

[The Scientific States]

This bill is an unnecessary barbaric attempt to harm nations whose economies are supported by the great woodchip export industry. Stop the World Assembly from holding our economies hostage and vote no.

It is not barbaric. The resolution intends to protect the environment, which in my opinion is the opposite of barbaric.

Also the economic damage caused by the resolution is minimal at most.

[Saveyou Island]

This bill is an unnecessary barbaric attempt to harm nations whose economies are supported by the great woodchip export industry. Stop the World Assembly from holding our economies hostage and vote no.

In no way does this resolution intend to harm economies. It protects environments, but not ban wood chipping!
Barbaric? Really?

[The Remean Lordship]

If there is no world there is no economy. If it were my way, there would be HUGE carbon taxes, a $1.50 tariff on gasoline, a 10 year plan to haul + nationalize the electric industry to replace all power plants to make clean electrons on renewable sources.

This resolution is already mild, not even comparing it to my radical ideas. Don't worry about your "economies."

[Republic of Coldwater]

Coldwater is Strongly Opposed to any sort of International Regulation of the Industries. By regulating the industries, you are destroying jobs and the economies of so many nations. A Good Environment does not mean strict regulations on industries that generate jobs; it requires a good economy. What better way of doing that than deregulation. By deregulating and leaving the industries alone, they will find what is the best for the environment as many companies, such as Shell have developed fuels such as BioEthonal (clean biofuel) in Brazil and they are quite successful. Therefore, Coldwater urges all member states to vote against this resolution.

And I yield the Floor.

[The Scientific States]

Coldwater is Strongly Opposed to any sort of International Regulation of the Industries. By regulating the industries, you are destroying jobs and the economies of so many nations. A Good Environment does not mean strict regulations on industries that generate jobs; it requires a good economy. What better way of doing that than deregulation. By deregulating and leaving the industries alone, they will find what is the best for the environment as many companies, such as Shell have developed fuels such as BioEthonal (clean biofuel) in Brazil and they are quite successful. Therefore, Coldwater urges all member states to vote against this resolution.

And I yield the Floor.

You must realize that moderate regulation will not destroy jobs or the economy.

It benefits humanity and society.

[Sciongrad]

It's very disappointing that despite the issues acknowledged by the author, this wasn't pulled from the queue so as to rectify them. Therefore, its with sincere regret that Sciongrad will be voting against this and will support a repeal attempt in the future.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

We see no reason why rainforests should be singled out for special protection, and look forward to supporting the repeal along with our colleagues in Sciongrad, who have already pointed out that the author of this resolution has acknowledged its many faults.

[Republic of Greater America]

Coldwater is Strongly Opposed to any sort of International Regulation of the Industries. By regulating the industries, you are destroying jobs and the economies of so many nations. A Good Environment does not mean strict regulations on industries that generate jobs; it requires a good economy. What better way of doing that than deregulation. By deregulating and leaving the industries alone, they will find what is the best for the environment as many companies, such as Shell have developed fuels such as BioEthonal (clean biofuel) in Brazil and they are quite successful. Therefore, Coldwater urges all member states to vote against this resolution.

And I yield the Floor.

I fully agree! The WA should only focus on non-industrial, and non-military matters, like social issues and other stuff. Meanwhile, I'm developing a bio-weapon that can kill someone in a month, so yeah...

[United Federation of Canada]

Coldwater is Strongly Opposed to any sort of International Regulation of the Industries. By regulating the industries, you are destroying jobs and the economies of so many nations. A Good Environment does not mean strict regulations on industries that generate jobs; it requires a good economy. What better way of doing that than deregulation. By deregulating and leaving the industries alone, they will find what is the best for the environment as many companies, such as Shell have developed fuels such as BioEthonal (clean biofuel) in Brazil and they are quite successful. Therefore, Coldwater urges all member states to vote against this resolution.

And I yield the Floor.

You must realize that moderate regulation will not destroy jobs or the economy.

It benefits humanity and society.

It is a moot point. This is another one of those resolutions that in the long run, does far more good than harm, yet we now have the "Fluffies", who could not be bothered to grace us with their presence, during drafting, nit-picking this to pieces, and screaming "NatSov, NatSov"!!!!!!!!

This was a good try, and if it passes, all the better. I highly expect Berg, or Mousie will be drafting an insta-repeal if this passes. Yet another example of a horrible travesty, that this god forsaken pit of doom has become.

Meanwhile, I'm developing a bio-weapon that can kill someone in a month, so yeah...

In direct violation of The Biological Weapons Convention sir? Have you no shame at all?

[Sciongrad]

You must realize that moderate regulation will not destroy jobs or the economy.

It benefits humanity and society.

It is a moot point. This is another one of those resolutions that in the long run, does far more good than harm, yet we now have the "Fluffies", who could not be bothered to grace us with their presence, during drafting, nit-picking this to pieces, and screaming "NatSov, NatSov"!!!!!!!!

This was a good try, and if it passes, all the better. I highly expect Berg, or Mousie will be drafting an insta-repeal if this passes. Yet another example of a horrible travesty, that this god forsaken pit of doom has become.

You know, there is a reason that the repeal function exists. You making sweeping generalizations about the intentions behind repeals is getting a little tiresome, especially when it involves drafts in which the authors have acknowledged faults. I don't think you fully understand what NatSov is yet if you think that all repeals are written with the same ideological motives.

[Republic of Coldwater]

Coldwater is Strongly Opposed to any sort of International Regulation of the Industries. By regulating the industries, you are destroying jobs and the economies of so many nations. A Good Environment does not mean strict regulations on industries that generate jobs; it requires a good economy. What better way of doing that than deregulation. By deregulating and leaving the industries alone, they will find what is the best for the environment as many companies, such as Shell have developed fuels such as BioEthonal (clean biofuel) in Brazil and they are quite successful. Therefore, Coldwater urges all member states to vote against this resolution.

And I yield the Floor.

You must realize that moderate regulation will not destroy jobs or the economy.

It benefits humanity and society.

Under Jimmy Carter, there were moderate regulations. What did we see, high inflation, unemployment and crime. After Reagan Deregulated the economy, it was much better. The Hong Kong economy has been failing after the Chinese took over and regulated the economy. Coldwater is an advocate of Laissez Faire as deregulation has always worked. When China reregulated after Mao Tse Dong's death, the economy became much stronger. Many nations in Africa are having stronger economies due to deregulation.

Again, Coldwater urges ALL Member Nations to vote against this resolution as it destroys jobs and doesn't solve the problem. If this passes, Coldwater will support a repeal of this resolution.

And I yield the floor.

[United Federation of Canada]

It is a moot point. This is another one of those resolutions that in the long run, does far more good than harm, yet we now have the "Fluffies", who could not be bothered to grace us with their presence, during drafting, nit-picking this to pieces, and screaming "NatSov, NatSov"!!!!!!!!

This was a good try, and if it passes, all the better. I highly expect Berg, or Mousie will be drafting an insta-repeal if this passes. Yet another example of a horrible travesty, that this god forsaken pit of doom has become.

You know, there is a reason that the repeal function exists. You making sweeping generalizations about the intentions behind repeals is getting a little tiresome, especially when it involves drafts in which the authors have acknowledged faults. I don't think you fully understand what NatSov is yet if you think that all repeals are written with the same ideological motives.

Oh I don't beleive that all repeals are written with the same ideological motives. I also FULLY understand what National Sovereignty is. What I am getting at is, although this may have some faults, does it really make that huge of a difference in the long run? Is this really going to bankrupt nations? Is the resolution doing more harm that good? No, no, and no.

Pretty much every argument made against this comes down to one thing " The WA is trying to control my economy and tell me what to do"! If that is the case, then why join the Assembly in the first place?

OCC: Scion in case you haven't figured it out yet, I am a very staunch supporter of a unified international government, both IC, and OCC, and do tend to treat the WA, more along those lines, than the U.N.

[The Scientific States]

You must realize that moderate regulation will not destroy jobs or the economy.

It benefits humanity and society.

Under Jimmy Carter, there were moderate regulations. What did we see, high inflation, unemployment and crime. After Reagan Deregulated the economy, it was much better. The Hong Kong economy has been failing after the Chinese took over and regulated the economy. Coldwater is an advocate of Laissez Faire as deregulation has always worked. When China reregulated after Mao Tse Dong's death, the economy became much stronger. Many nations in Africa are having stronger economies due to deregulation.

Again, Coldwater urges ALL Member Nations to vote against this resolution as it destroys jobs and doesn't solve the problem. If this passes, Coldwater will support a repeal of this resolution.

And I yield the floor.

Ok, since you think regulations and environmental protection won't solve the problem, what will solve the problem?

[Sciongrad]

Oh I don't beleive that all repeals are written with the same ideological motives. I also FULLY understand what National Sovereignty is. What I am getting at is, although this may have some faults, does it really make that huge of a difference in the long run? Is this really going to bankrupt nations? Is the resolution doing more harm that good? No, no, and no.

Pretty much every argument made against this comes down to one thing " The WA is trying to control my economy and tell me what to do"! If that is the case, then why join the Assembly in the first place?

OCC: Scion in case you haven't figured it out yet, I am a very staunch supporter of a unified international government, both IC, and OCC, and do tend to treat the WA, more along those lines, than the U.N.

I'm of the opinion that flaws warrant repeals, period. In this particular case, the resolution is vague, it's meritorious goals are clouded by its unnecessarily stringent restrictions on national economies, the committee it creates acts without standards by which to work, and it's full of grammatical errors. A resolution doesn't need to bankrupt nations to be repealed, it just has to have sufficient flaws.

Furthermore, your second argument confuses me. It's not the goal of the World Assembly to "control [...] economies," its goal is to improve the world by legislating on matters that are worthwhile for all nations. Any restrictions made by the World Assembly should benefit either nations or people, and this resolution, in its current states, does neither.

OOC: I respect your opinion, but don't expect to get sympathy when you attack authors for being NatSov or for writing repeals. Labeling anything less extreme than you as "NatSov" (and using it as if it's some pejorative descriptor) without defending your actual position is not the way to go about this.

[Republic of Coldwater]

Under Jimmy Carter, there were moderate regulations. What did we see, high inflation, unemployment and crime. After Reagan Deregulated the economy, it was much better. The Hong Kong economy has been failing after the Chinese took over and regulated the economy. Coldwater is an advocate of Laissez Faire as deregulation has always worked. When China reregulated after Mao Tse Dong's death, the economy became much stronger. Many nations in Africa are having stronger economies due to deregulation.

Again, Coldwater urges ALL Member Nations to vote against this resolution as it destroys jobs and doesn't solve the problem. If this passes, Coldwater will support a repeal of this resolution.

And I yield the floor.

Ok, since you think regulations and environmental protection won't solve the problem, what will solve the problem?

Deregulations and leaving the industries alone. The energy industry will find out how to make renewable sources themselves. Shell in Brazil has developed BioEthonal and it is a clean biofuel and it is getting a lot of money. Deregulating the markets will also allow the drilling of Shale. Shale is cheap, and cleaner than Gasoline. Therefore, there are a lot of market-based solutions to environmental damage and it is definitely not a government's job to make sure that all companies are being environmentally friendly, as many are. Also, by leaving the sector alone and not dictating it's behavior, the energy sector can find out how to make ultra low voltage devices that won't pollute as much C02, or can be powered by a single solar cell. Intel released their Haswell chips for a laptop. Some of them can run on a solar cell. That won't pollute! Therefore, the market is the solution to environmental damage, NOT the government.

And I yield the floor