[PASSED] Repeal "Rainforest Protection Act"

[Auralia]

The one you made on Fri Aug 23, 2013 7:42 pm.

You mean this?

The TRPA does not determine what constitutes "special legal protection and restrictions to exploitation" in protected areas. The clause establishing the TRPA doesn't refer to protected area status at all, actually.

[Horusland]

Auralia, could you answer this post? I think that it might be a major flaw in your repeal.

[The Akashic Records]

I think the Remean ambassador meant this.

The TRPA does not determine what constitutes "special legal protection and restrictions to exploitation" in protected areas. The clause establishing the TRPA doesn't refer to protected area status at all, actually.

[Auralia]

I think the Remean ambassador meant this.

The TRPA does not determine what constitutes "special legal protection and restrictions to exploitation" in protected areas. The clause establishing the TRPA doesn't refer to protected area status at all, actually.

Well, it doesn't, as I've pointed out. I'd also like a response to the first point as well.

[Auralia]

A few years ago, some American project was allowed into my RL country. They mined minerals, etc.

Birds are still falling from the sky, as the location is the only mountain pass through which they migrate. They tendto fall on top of the mass of dead trees.

The 'concerned' part of the repeal convinced me to vote against it. If it's even put to vote.

I certainly feel for you, but I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make.

[Horusland]

Concerned by the target resolution's ban on mineral extraction in tropical rainforest areas when it causes any surface ecosystem damage, which fails to take into account that such damage may only be temporary and that the land can be reclaimed after resource extraction is complete.

Wrong. It's not temporary. It lasts for years and years and kills off everything. Everything. And that's what the initial resolution was trying to prevent.
This is all down to an environmentalist vs. anthropocentric battle.

EDIT: And the land can be reclaimed. The newly barren land. Irrelevant to the resolution and to the repeal.

[Auralia]

Concerned by the target resolution's ban on mineral extraction in tropical rainforest areas when it causes any surface ecosystem damage, which fails to take into account that such damage may only be temporary and that the land can be reclaimed after resource extraction is complete.

Wrong. It's not temporary. It lasts for years and years and kills off everything. Everything. And that's what the initial resolution was trying to prevent.
This is all down to an environmentalist vs. anthropocentric battle.

You're wrong. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you're wrong. I think you should read more about land reclamation before you make statements like that.

[Horusland]

Wrong. It's not temporary. It lasts for years and years and kills off everything. Everything. And that's what the initial resolution was trying to prevent.
This is all down to an environmentalist vs. anthropocentric battle.

You're wrong. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you're wrong. I think you should read more about land reclamation before you make statements like that.

I'm sorry, but I really don't get it. So, who reclaims the land? And I hope you're not trying to say that there aren't ecological disasters in the area after the mining.

I'm also sorry if I'm disturbing you in any ay by posting here.
The fact is that I have a very different posting style. I support my opinions until someone proves them wrong. I have no problem with any argument, as long as you prove it.

[Auralia]

You're wrong. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you're wrong. I think you should read more about land reclamation before you make statements like that.

I'm sorry, but I really don't get it. So, who reclaims the land? And I hope you're not trying to say that there aren't ecological disasters in the area after the mining.

I'm not denying that land is disturbed by mining. All I'm saying is that the damage is temporary. In Alberta, oil sands companies must pay to restore land affected by mining to equivalent land capacity after they're finished with it. This involves soil placement, re-vegetation, tree planting, you name it. They also have to monitor the land for 15+ years.

[Horusland]

I'm sorry, but I really don't get it. So, who reclaims the land? And I hope you're not trying to say that there aren't ecological disasters in the area after the mining.

I'm not denying that land is disturbed by mining. All I'm saying is that the damage is temporary. In Alberta, oil sands companies must pay to restore land affected by mining to equivalent land capacity after they're finished with it. This involves soil placement, re-vegetation, tree planting, you name it. They also have to monitor the land for 15+ years.

Really?
Well, you just convinced me. If someone promises to re-make the resolution, I'm voting for this.

[Auralia]

I'm not denying that land is disturbed by mining. All I'm saying is that the damage is temporary. In Alberta, oil sands companies must pay to restore land affected by mining to equivalent land capacity after they're finished with it. This involves soil placement, re-vegetation, tree planting, you name it. They also have to monitor the land for 15+ years.

Really?
Well, you just convinced me. If someone promises to re-make the resolution, I'm voting for this.

Glad to hear it.

[Islands of Apollo]

Auralia » Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:26 pm

Norway and Iceland wrote:
We would like to ask if the proposing delegation have a replacement for the said Act?

We don't intend to write a replacement ourselves, no.

Don't waste our time, make a better version of the proposal instead of just throwing it away. I am against the repeal.

[Araraukar]

Don't waste our time, make a better version of the proposal instead of just throwing it away. I am against the repeal.

That's not quite how things work around here. If you repeal, you don't have to replace. (Plus someone else was writing a replacement last I looked.)

[Saveyou Island]

Auralia » Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:26 pm




We don't intend to write a replacement ourselves, no.

Don't waste our time, make a better version of the proposal instead of just throwing it away. I am against the repeal.

So you're against because he's not replacing it?
Seriously?

[Araraukar]

So you're against because he's not replacing it?

He's allowed his opinion. It was just somewhat rudely expressed.

[Auralia]

Auralia » Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:26 pm




We don't intend to write a replacement ourselves, no.

Don't waste our time, make a better version of the proposal instead of just throwing it away. I am against the repeal.

Someone else is.

[Capitalist Producers]

We fully support repeal. We are 100% on board.

We would like to ask if the proposing delegation have a replacement for the said Act?

-and-

On another note, we thank the Ambassador for his reply, however, we urge him to have a replacement ready before submitting the repeal. Forests are at stake.

If one has infected tissue excised from one's body, is one then required to replace the infection?

I don't think we need to replace it. There are very few nations that do not practice reforestation. Those that don't can sink in their own mud. It is really none of our business.

highly doubt that. You'd be surprised, but some people actually care for the environment.

Oh contraire oh great Science States. We. Like most others care a great deal about the environment. It is pinheads with Global Warming con games that we object to.

Why are all of you trying to repeal these perfectly fine resolutions?

Because it is unreasonable in scope and authority.

He's allowed his opinion. It was just somewhat rudely expressed.

The act was somewhat rudely passed on us. So what's your point?

[The Akashic Records]

The act was somewhat rudely passed on us. So what's your point?

We're not sure if the ambassador read the terms when the good ambassador joined the WA.

[Normlpeople]

Despite the fact that we are simply ignoring the resolution (as we do all environmental ones), we will support a repeal. Keep up the good work.

[Horusland]

If one has infected tissue excised from one's body, is one then required to replace the infection?

I don't think we need to replace it. There are very few nations that do not practice reforestation. Those that don't can sink in their own mud. It is really none of our business.

Their own mud = their own air. What air? Oh, yeah, no air. But wait a sec..... isn't the WA supposed to help nations, instead of letting them 'sink in their own mud'? Yep.

The 'oh, it doesn't affect us so we don't care' thing is not good.

[Auralia]

I intend to submit this within a few days.

[Tenebriso]

Their own mud = their own air. What air? Oh, yeah, no air. But wait a sec..... isn't the WA supposed to help nations, instead of letting them 'sink in their own mud'? Yep.

The 'oh, it doesn't affect us so we don't care' thing is not good.

Helping is different than forcing them to enact policies that contradict how their economies and trade work. If you want to help countries then create a commission that helps them reforest the land after it has been used. Or create a resolution that will fund an international coalition to research better reforestation techniques. Don't assume that yourself or some committee out in another country knows how to run the affairs of anyone else's.

[Horusland]

Their own mud = their own air. What air? Oh, yeah, no air. But wait a sec..... isn't the WA supposed to help nations, instead of letting them 'sink in their own mud'? Yep.

The 'oh, it doesn't affect us so we don't care' thing is not good.

Helping is different than forcing them to enact policies that contradict how their economies and trade work. If you want to help countries then create a commission that helps them reforest the land after it has been used. Or create a resolution that will fund an international coalition to research better reforestation techniques. Don't assume that yourself or some committee out in another country knows how to run the affairs of anyone else's.

Yes, but I informed him that 'They can destroy their own countries. Why should we care?' is not good thinking.
Now notice what I bolded in your response. Both of you seem to not want the WA meddling in others' affairs. But that is what the WA does. It regulates things to help the world. If you don't like it, then the perfect solution to not being controlled by the WA would be exiting the WA. Your solutions are very good, but don't bring the 'why should I care?/we shouldn't be controlled' card, because that is the purpose of the WA.

[Auralia]

Submitted.

[Hittanryan]

Wrong. It's not temporary. It lasts for years and years and kills off everything. Everything. And that's what the initial resolution was trying to prevent.
This is all down to an environmentalist vs. anthropocentric battle.

You're wrong. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you're wrong. I think you should read more about land reclamation before you make statements like that.

You do realize that Alberta doesn't have any tropical rainforests, right Auralia? Comparing Alberta to Ecuador is apples to oranges, the only way they could be more different would be if you compared tropical rainforests to desert or tundra. There are no large-scale reclamation techniques for rain forests out of the bare proof of concept stages.

I'm against the repeal, and I'll support the proposed replacement should the repeal pass.