Big Boyz wrote:There are some nations that have an abundance of tallgrass prairies, it is true, but the argument that this will inevitably lead to the slow death of nations is nonsensical. Areas that have already been developed are not subject to the provisions of this proposal, such as cities, farms, and roadways, so efforts to improve and maintain these structures are always available. Expansion is definitely permitted in the areas surrounding tallgrass prairies, so I do not see how this will "condemn" nations, as you have so claimed. If nations currently have an abundance of tallgrass prairie, to the extent that this proposal would limit infrastructural expansion, then one is left to wonder why they haven't expanded into these prairies already? Surely they are desirable enough for conversion. If a nation has maintained its prairies in their abundant state for this long, then I doubt that they would take issue with continuing to do so.
Finally, the situation that is being described is, at best, a fringe case. You could make the same argument about a nation which is comprised entirely of endangered ecosystems, or other protected biomes, such as wetlands. The logical extension of this argument is that no ecosystem can be set aside for conservation, because any nation could have a great number of protected lands within their boarders.
OOC: First of all, you're completely wrong. A nation could still be in the early stages of economic development, not all nations in the World Assembly are fully developed and highly technologically advanced nations. There are nations in the WA that are just emerging from the industrial revolution, or are still in the middle ages. Yet even for those nations that are still developing in the modern age, your proposal has ended all possible development for them. If prairie tall grasses are the dominant biosphere for that nation, they will be confined to the settlements that they have, and they will be unable to develop better infrastructure or expand their food produce because they can't develop new agrarian land. Their population isn't going to stay the same, it is going to grow. Because they won't be able to develop new settlement, nor expand existing cities because they may be surrounded by prairie tall grasses, then the proposal condemns them to dangerous levels of overpopulation in the cities that they do have. You refuse to look beyond what you want to see, and completely ignore the existence of developing nations in the World Assembly.
Also, even a fringe case deserves to be addressed, because you are severely if not disastrously affecting those nations with this proposal. If there was
not a single other alternative, we might have to choose the lesser evil. Yet there literally is an alternative here, which is a better proposal that takes into account these factors, factors which have been pointed out to you during the drafting of your own proposal, but which you dismissed out of hand. As a result, they will not form one of the repeal hooks in this proposal. That's how the WA works.
Big Boyz wrote:Tall grass prairies do not occur in every member state, that is not what what the proposal says. It makes generic assertions that these tallgrass prairies exist in more than just one nation, and it also makes generic references to the fact that tallgrass prairies are greatly diminished on an international scale and worthy of protection.
Regarding invasive species, I would point out that the definition of land development only pertains to the alteration of its landscape from its naturally occurring form. If, in fact, restoration efforts are to be taken to remove invasive species and restore a landscape to its naturally occurring form prior to the encroachment of prairies, then this would not meet the definition of 'land development', and hence not be prohibited.
OOC: You have based your entire argument on real life references, something that the rules of GA proposal making clearly states is a no-go. Prairie tall grasses may be indeed threatened in real life, but that does not go up in NationStates no matter how many times you repeat that it does. NationStates is its own universe with its own rules, and prairie tall grasses can be entirely not-endangered in the reality of NS. That is the entire problem that poster after poster tries to make clear to you, yet you ignore anything that is being said to you, time after time. Real life = not NS. General things apply, sure, but prairie tall grasses are not a general thing. They're a very specific and unique biome that only occurs in the USA and a few parts of Canada. It therefore doesn't count as a general thing that can be taken over in the reality of NS, as its so specifically tied to the real world. If prairie tall grasses occurd across the entire Earth, then perhaps it might have counted. But not in this case. Really, this has been repeated to you by many posters, why can't you simply understand that you are wrong in this regard and admit your mistake?
Big Boyz wrote:The problem with GA 465 is that it does not extend protections to species that are not currently endangered. It does provide protections for the species currently at risk of becoming extinct (ie, endangered), but it does not protect species and habitats that are at risk of becoming endangered (ie threatened, or at risk of becoming at risk of becoming extinct, which is definitely not protected under GA 465). Under GA 465, a nation could destroy an ecosystem to the brink of becoming endangered, then back off and let it recover for a bit, then continue to destroy the ecosystem. This prevents critical ecosystems from reaching the prevalence required to see the environmental and industrial benefits provided by these ecosystems on a large scale. The thing about the current proposal is that it continues to protect habitat once species have recovered enough to no longer be endangered. This allows us to realize the potential benefits afforded by tallgrass prairies on a large scale, such as effective runoff filtration, and establishment of habitat for large mammals, such as the RL examples of bison and grey wolves who are otherwise nonexistent in the currently remaining scattered parcels.
OOC: Yet you have no proof that prairie tall grasses are at risk of becoming endangered. In the real world? Yes, true. Yet in the reality of NationStates? No, there real life data that is so specific and closely tied to a real life unicum doesn't go up. That is why a resolution pertaining
all unique environments would have solved this issue perfectly, and you would have garnered even greater support. Yet for some inexplicable reason you refuse to listen to this advice. In NationStates you have to take into account the fact that players come with a variety of different nations. You can't just dismiss this, because otherwise it becomes another repeal hook, as it became here. GA 465 does an excellent job of addressing that variety, that diversity, because it uses the neutral term "species" which can apply to so many things. That's the strength of that proposal, a strength that is completely lacking in yours. Look over many of the proposals that have passed and you will see that authors even use neutral terms such as "sapients" instead of "humans", to avoid infringing upon that diversity. You can't dictate how people should RP their nations, yet to draft and create a solid proposal, you need to take their RP into account. Your refusal to do so has given me an excellent repeal hook.
Big Boyz wrote:A fire can still be ecologically damaging, even if it does not expand enough to be considered a "wildfire". The provisions in the current proposal also creates alternatives to controlled burns, if such action may be damaging to the ecosystem, whether or not this action risks causing a wildfire.
OOC: Your current definition has made wildfires appear sentient, that is what your proposal has done. GA 296 does a better job at describing both how to approach the topic of wildfires as well as controlled burns. Your proposal uses nebulous terms such as "in the best interest of". What is this best interest? How is a wildfire supposed to know what is in the best interest of the surrounding environment? Or a controlled burn? Your proposal has created a superfluous bureaucratic burden, that is much better approached by the aforementioned resolution.
Big Boyz wrote:While a few sites may be considered "culturally significant" under GA 287, it is doubtful that this proposal would effectively preserve enough of this ecosystem to be relevant. The provisions of GA 287 would still be fulfilled if a single acre of prairie was set aside indefinitely for preservation, if it can be considered "culturally relevant" with no other sites meeting the same criteria.
OOC: If prairie tall grasses are a unique environment to a nation, and economically and culturally important as you have stated before, then there is no reason why the WATCH can't designate the entirety of the prairie tall grass area a cultural site. In additional, the proposal literally states "nations shall take all reasonable precautions to avoid unnecessary damage to sites the WATCH has deemed culturally relevant". This one sentence manages to accomplish what you needed an entire proposal for. Especially when you take the two other resolution alongside this, then there is already ample enough protection for prairie tall grasses. And if you really wanted to make a special resolution, then a resolution that addressed
all unique environments would have been the right path to walk.
Big Boyz wrote:It's typically easier to have an international law targeted at each specific ecosystem type, since it is easier to tailor management and protection techniques to those specific ecosystems. A proposal which protects all unique ecosystems would be laden with bureaucracy, as unique solutions for management would have to be discovered tailored individually for each habitat. Separate proposals mitigate this by supplying management techniques already known to be effective.
In reality, most smaller, unique ecosystems do not afford the same ecological and economic benefits that the prevalence of tallgrass prairies do. There are really quite few ecosystems for which an individual proposal would be required, and some already are protected under previous legislation (wetlands, for example).
OOC: If it had been an ecosystem that occurs in many environments, then perhaps you would have been correct. Yet you refuse to see how intricately tied prairie tall grasses are to a
single specific biome on Earth. Besides, the WA prizes efficiency of resource distribution. Having a resolution for every single unique environment would make the already bloated bureaucracy even more bloated and chaotic. How can you not see that a single resolution for all unique environments or ecosystems is a efficient way to approach the problem of them becoming endangered? It would have cut down on bureaucratic chaos and make things overseeable. If the WA has 50 individual resolutions for 50 unique biomes, then we'll have a bureaucratic mess of the likes we have never seen in the WA. You accuse a singular proposal to be laden with bureaucracy, yet fail to see how your propsoed approach is
exactly what you accuse it of.
Also, again "in reality", which does not go up in NS. A nation may have an entirely different environment be a driving force for its culture and economy, and never even heard of prairie tall grasses. Had this been a proposal in the real world, you might have had a point. But in NS it simply does not go up, and the rules of GA proposal writing support this notion, even if you conveniently ignore its existence.
It's right here:
"Real World Reference: WA laws are written for the world of NationStates and the fictional countries therein, so your proposal should not contain any real world references. This includes but is not limited to, world leaders, real world persons, places, organizations and/or events. Generic references, however, are permitted, such as religions, political philosophies, languages, general scientific terminology, and phenomena."
Posted: Tue May 04, 2021 6:48 am