NationStates

Thank you all for the input so far, below is my second version. I think I fixed a couple of problems with the old one, but it didn't become shorter. It may be a strategy to just write a lot of options and then pick the best of them.

NO Problems

After non-neglectable emissions of nitrogen compounds and resulting eutrophication have caused @@ANIMAL@@ grass to outgrow many endangered species, a meeting has been called to find a solution.

Option 1 (not for Vegetarianism): "We knew it all along!", yells vegan activist @@RANDOMNAME@@ while trying to untie the leather shoes of your Minister. "This whole problem is caused by you letting farmers freely pollute the world with all their ammonia, you know what should be free? The animals! Just ban the possession of livestock, then everything will be amazing."

Effect: dealing dairy is a black market hit
Adds policy: Vegetarianism

Option 2:
"It's quit obvious, to me", tells evironmental activist @@RANDOMNAME@@ "This whole problem is caused by farmers who dump as much fertilizer on their grounds as they want. Just mandate that everything is produces organically, then everything will return to normal."

Effect: food tends to be considered a luxury.

Option 3 (capitalist version): "I can't deny that our secor emits something else besides stocks", reacts @@RANDOMNAME@@, CEO of Cheese Unlimited, "but think of the @@POPULATION@@ mouths we have to feed! With some subsidy, our farmers can buy air-tight mega farms with filter systems to prevent ammonia from entering the atmosphere in the first place. Imagine the efficiency!

Option 3 (socialist version): "I can't deny that our sector produces something else besides basic neccesities for the commoners", reacts @@RANDOMNAME@@, chairman of your cheese kolkhoz, "but think of the @@POPULATION@@ mouths we have to feed! With some subsidy, our farmers can buy air-tight mega farms with filter systems to prevent ammonia from entering the atmosphere in the first place. Imagine the efficiency!

Effect: 30-story factory farms dominate the skyline of @@CAPITAL@@

Option 4: "The industry releases huge amounts of nitric oxides in the atmosphere", recites @@RANDOMNAME@@, a scruffy-looking student who somehow got past your security. "They are to blame, you should impose strict regulation and huge fines on any company that even thinks of polluting our planet. @@HE@@ continues to inhale laughing gas before being dragged away.

Effect: the exhaust of every chimney is inspected daily

Option 5: "We have a solution ready for you, @@LEADER@@.", proposes @@RANDOMNAME@@, Director of Steel 'n Stuff "See, in Kawandaland, pollution isn't an issue, and labour there is cheaper too. Now, if you sign this and this paper, we can get some subsidy and lay of workers to move our bussiness there. A win-win if you ask me."

Effect: causing harm is okay, as long as you pay someone else to do it for you

Option 6: "I might have a better idea", yawns your Minister of Boring Solutions, who just awakes from a beauty sleep on your desk. "According to our calculations, lowering the speed limit to 30 km/h would also just be enough to save our native sundew. It saves on traffic accidents too, and isn't saving and safety just all we want?

Effect: commuters often cite "protecting endangered species" as reason for coming late.

Option 7: "Unbelievable", snarls 60-year old sceptic @@RANDOMNAME@@, who has been quietly watching so far. "it seems everyone just forgets the fact that there isn't actually a problem to be solved. I mean, isn't it just survival of the fittest? Let those plants adapt, they'll figure it out. Or not. But anyways, we should distance ourselves from these quacks that think they'll fix something.

Effect: the best way to prevent species from being endangered is letting them go extinct altogether

Currently, you present an issue on nitrogen pollution, but you seem to have options that deal with both nitrous substances found in fertilizer and animal manure (agriculture) and nitrogen dioxide (ICE vehicle use). I would suggest you focus on either the agriculture side (runoff pollution from factory farms) or the urban side (addressing emissions in cars).

Even if your country is vegetarian, that doesn't mean your vegetables and fruits are organic. Fertilizers will still be used to grow crops, which still contributes to nitrogen runoff even if you don't raise livestock.

Your issue premise might overlap with one dealing with dead zones (which involve nitrogen runoff pollution).

How does nitrogen pollution encourage the growth of invasive species like Bigtopian Buckthorn? Is there a real-life example of that? Additionally, you don't specify what nitrogen pollution is causing that, which ties back into my first paragraph that you have too broad of a premise.

You can study a little bit of the aspiration of air in animals to get a better grasp of this. Some guy names 'Biblaridion' on YT has a great series about alien life, it includes useful stuff

Outer Sparta wrote:Currently, you present an issue on nitrogen pollution, but you seem to have options that deal with both nitrous substances found in fertilizer and animal manure (agriculture) and nitrogen dioxide (ICE vehicle use). I would suggest you focus on either the agriculture side (runoff pollution from factory farms) or the urban side (addressing emissions in cars).

I am fully aware of the different sources of nitrogen compounds (agriculture is only good for like 25% in my country), but I didn't want to go to much into detail about that. I did add separate options about emissions by agriculture and emissions by car. I know industry is also a significant source of emissions, but I couldn't yet think of an option about that. Do you mean I should focus my option on either the agricultural side or the urban side? That would reduce the number of possibilities (options).

Outer Sparta wrote:Even if your country is vegetarian, that doesn't mean your vegetables and fruits are organic. Fertilizers will still be used to grow crops, which still contributes to nitrogen runoff even if you don't raise livestock.

Of course, but agriculture of fruits and vegetables still produces and consumes roughly equal amounts of bound nitrogen. It's mainly animal husbandry that produces it in excess due to import of food from overseas or from other parts of the country. As the first two options are about livestock, the Issue isn't suitable for countries with Vegetarianism in its current form. I could add an option about non-livestock agriculture for those countries.

Outer Sparta wrote:Your issue premise might overlap with one dealing with dead zones (which involve nitrogen runoff pollution).

I didn't know that (or I forgot about it). Could you give me the number of the Issue?

Outer Sparta wrote:How does nitrogen pollution encourage the growth of invasive species like Bigtopian Buckthorn? Is there a real-life example of that? Additionally, you don't specify what nitrogen pollution is causing that, which ties back into my first paragraph that you have too broad of a premise.

Not as far as I know, it is mostly grass which can take advantage of more N to outgrows everything else. It just sounds funny in my opinion.

Chocolatistan wrote:The Issue is not suitable for nations with Vegetarianism, because of the first two options.

It is possible to eat cheese and still be a vegetarian.

Tinhampton wrote:

Chocolatistan wrote:The Issue is not suitable for nations with Vegetarianism, because of the first two options.

It is possible to eat cheese and still be a vegetarian.

Yes, but the first option is about banning all livestock, and the second option is kind of a reply to that. Maybe I should change it a bit and add an option concerning industrial emissions, to get some more balance.

Chocolatistan wrote:

Tinhampton wrote:It is possible to eat cheese and still be a vegetarian.

Yes, but the first option is about banning all livestock, and the second option is kind of a reply to that. Maybe I should change it a bit and add an option concerning industrial emissions, to get some more balance.

Again, your premise is too broad. If you're going to make an issue addressing nitrogen pollution, then narrow your focus.

Chocolatistan wrote:Do you mean I should focus my option on either the agricultural side or the urban side? That would reduce the number of possibilities (options).

As Outer Sparta says, your premise is very broad at the moment. One thing that new writers often don't realise is that you don't have to include every possible solution to a particular scenario - it's enough to just include those options that allow you to tell a complete story. Where that line is (too many vs too few options) is something the most experienced issue writers still get wrong in their drafts, but that's what posting here for feedback is all about.

So don't worry too much about narrowing things down, even if it feels like you no longer have a full range of options - as long as you have the ones that will provide a satisfying end to the narrative running through your issue, you're good to go!

Chocolatistan wrote:

Outer Sparta wrote:Your issue premise might overlap with one dealing with dead zones (which involve nitrogen runoff pollution).

I didn't know that (or I forgot about it). Could you give me the number of the Issue?

#599 "Dead in the Water"

Why have these chemicals favoured one plant over native ones?

Outer Sparta wrote:Can you at least post your revised draft in the OP instead of in the middle of the thread where it'll cause headaches for people to look at and clog up the thread?

Ok.

Can you at least post your revised draft in the OP instead of in the middle of the thread where it'll cause headaches for people to look at and clog up the thread?