Page 1 of 10
[PASSED] Repeal "Rainforest Protection Act"
Posted:
Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:07 pmby Auralia
Repeal "Rainforest Protection Act"Category: Repeal | Resolution:
GAR #261
Affirming the purpose of GAR #261, "Rainforest Protection Act", namely to protect and preserve tropical rainforests,
Nevertheless believing that the flaws present in the target resolution necessitate its repeal,
Disturbed by the target resolution's ban on slash-and-burn agriculture in tropical rainforest areas, which fails to take into account that slash-and-burn agriculture:
- can be practiced in an ecologically sustainable manner and only causes environmental damage when insufficient time is allowed for vegetation regrowth, and
- is a necessity for subsistence farmers who would otherwise be faced with the prospect of starvation due to a lack of suitable farmland in forested areas,
Troubled 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 restored to equivalent land capacity through replanting and soil replacement after resource extraction is complete,
Distressed by the lack of an appeals process or even any established criteria for the Tropical Rainforest Protection Agency's determination of logging quotas, which allows the Agency to arbitrarily restrict forestry industries in World Assembly member nations without any accountability,
The General Assembly,
Repeals GAR #261, "Rainforest Protection Act".
Posted:
Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:15 pmby Grays Harbor
We voted against it (so much for that "secret ballot" thing, eh), so naturally we are in favour of a repeal.
Posted:
Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:16 pmby Christian Democrats
The Christian Democratic Empire will support the repeal of the Rainforest Protection Act.
Posted:
Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:18 pmby The Scientific States
The Scientific States is strongly opposed to repealing the Rainforest Protection Act.
Posted:
Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:23 pmby Norway and Iceland
We would like to ask if the proposing delegation have a replacement for the said Act?
Posted:
Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:26 pmby Auralia
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.
Posted:
Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:09 pmby United Federation of Canada
Auralia wrote: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.
Why?
Oh, please don't tell me you have been assimilated by the " REPEALBOTS" as well?
Posted:
Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:10 pmby Libraria and Ausitoria
We would like to state our firm support for the impending repeal of that outrageous proposal. In addition we are also rather cross that it singles out tropical rainforests as more worthy of protection than other forests.
Posted:
Tue Aug 20, 2013 3:41 amby Norway and Iceland
Libraria and Ausitoria wrote:In addition we are also rather cross that it singles out tropical rainforests as more worthy of protection than other forests.
That is precisely the problem we noticed in the Act.
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.
Posted:
Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:33 amby Araraukar
Norway and Iceland wrote:Forests are at stake.
You try writing one then. I support this repeal even without any replacement in the works. There's been other attempts and they've always run into massive trouble. I suspect the current one's getting through only because of the feel-good title.
Posted:
Tue Aug 20, 2013 5:16 amby Libraria and Ausitoria
Norway and Iceland wrote:Forests are at stake.
And with those four words and thimbleful of boredom we have been inspired to try to remedy the lack of insta-replacement, but do feel free to try your hand at your own.
Posted:
Tue Aug 20, 2013 10:06 amby Republic of Greater America
The Republic of Greater America is highly in favor of the repeal.
Posted:
Tue Aug 20, 2013 12:47 pmby Latvoria
I do agree that Rainforests should be protected. However, we must take into consideration the welfare of the people. Agriculture is not a luxury, but a necessity. Furthermore, mineral deposit extraction can help in developing an economy. Latvoria's Uranium mines are within range of a major forest. However, I would not allow the destruction of the whole forest to place a mine. We can protect the environment without putting into jeopardy the integrity of the country. I voted against the Act and I will support the Repeal.
Posted:
Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:01 pmby Norway and Iceland
Libraria and Ausitoria wrote:Norway and Iceland wrote:Forests are at stake.
And with those four words and thimbleful of boredom we have been inspired to try to remedy the lack of insta-replacement, but do feel free to try your hand at your own.
We thank the Ambassador for his comments and will see if our delegation can make some kind of contribution in the weeks to come.
Posted:
Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:06 pmby The Scientific States
Araraukar wrote:Norway and Iceland wrote:Forests are at stake.
You try writing one then. I support this repeal even without any replacement in the works. There's been other attempts and they've always run into massive trouble. I suspect the current one's getting through only because of the feel-good title.
I highly doubt that. You'd be surprised, but some people actually care for the environment.
Posted:
Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:27 pmby Auralia
The Scientific States wrote:Araraukar wrote:You try writing one then. I support this repeal even without any replacement in the works. There's been other attempts and they've always run into massive trouble. I suspect the current one's getting through only because of the feel-good title.
I highly doubt that. You'd be surprised, but some people actually care for the environment.
I do too, but that doesn't change the fact that the resolution at vote is flawed.
Posted:
Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:40 pmby The Scientific States
Auralia wrote:The Scientific States wrote:I highly doubt that. You'd be surprised, but some people actually care for the environment.
I do too, but that doesn't change the fact that the resolution at vote is flawed.
I recognize that there are a few minor flaws, but the good things in the resolution far outnumber the minor flaws.
Posted:
Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:43 pmby Nalt
The Scientific States wrote:Auralia wrote:I do too, but that doesn't change the fact that the resolution at vote is flawed.
I recognize that there are a few minor flaws, but the good things in the resolution far outnumber the minor flaws.
The error with the definition of "protected area" is pretty grave.
Posted:
Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:46 pmby Sciongrad
The Scientific States wrote:Auralia wrote:I do too, but that doesn't change the fact that the resolution at vote is flawed.
I recognize that there are a few minor flaws, but the good things in the resolution far outnumber the minor flaws.
Unfortunately, Sciongrad disputesthe claim the the flaws are minor, and that the good outweighs said flaws. Unfortunately, I'm for this repeal.
Posted:
Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:49 pmby Auralia
The Scientific States wrote:Auralia wrote:I do too, but that doesn't change the fact that the resolution at vote is flawed.
I recognize that there are a few minor flaws, but the good things in the resolution far outnumber the minor flaws.
I think that a vague and effectively useless protected area status requirement, misguided bans on slash-and-burn agriculture and mineral extraction, and an unaccountable WA committee with a remarkable degree of control over national forestry industries, are rather significant flaws, actually.
Regardless, even if we assume the flaws were only minor, the resolution should still be repealed and replaced. Indeed, that's one of the reasons why the repeal function exists: to improve upon existing legislation.
Posted:
Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:50 pmby The Scientific States
Auralia wrote:The Scientific States wrote:I recognize that there are a few minor flaws, but the good things in the resolution far outnumber the minor flaws.
I think that a vague and effectively useless protected area status requirement, misguided bans on slash-and-burn agriculture and mineral extraction, and an unaccountable WA committee with a remarkable degree of control over national forestry industries, are rather significant flaws, actually.
Regardless, even if we assume the flaws were only minor, the resolution should still be repealed and replaced. Indeed, that's one of the reasons why the repeal function exists: to improve upon existing legislation.
I don't see why protected areas are bad. The same goes for the other bans that harm the environment. I don't see why those bans that are there to help the environment are considered flaws.
Posted:
Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:54 pmby Arcturus Novus
This resolution is too environmentally important to be repealed.
Posted:
Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:55 pmby The Scientific States
Arcturus Novus wrote:This resolution is too environmentally important to be repealed.
Indeed it is.
Posted:
Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:56 pmby Auralia
The Scientific States wrote:I don't see why protected areas are bad.
The issue is not that protected area status is inherently a bad thing. The issue is that the definition of protected area status used by your resolution is vague and unclear. "Special legal protection" is a meaningless requirement.
The Scientific States wrote:The same goes for the other bans that harm the environment. I don't see why those bans that are there to help the environment are considered flaws.
The problem is that slash-and-burn agricultural practices don't have lasting harms on the environment, if they're done right. Same goes for mineral extraction requiring temporary harm to surface ecosystems.
Posted:
Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:57 pmby Auralia
Arcturus Novus wrote:This resolution is too environmentally important to be repealed.
No resolution is "too important to be repealed." All repealed resolutions can be replaced, if necessary.