NationStates

Bergnovinaia wrote:So it should be the save earth bill. I will add in the part that if nations have already achieved "greeness" for lack of a better term can do not need to set aside funds for exploration of new resources.

A save the earth bill... and that addresses one planet. Not others.

Also, you would need to define just what is "green" because a nation could claim it has achieved it.

Your point is noted. I think with rewording it could be made to apply to all planets.

It would be simpler to use "the world" as a general term, honoured ambassador. The world of NationStates is myriad of many types of land and planets, some which are occupied by one nation, some by many.

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:It would be simpler to use "the world" as a general term, honoured ambassador. The world of NationStates is myriad of many types of land and planets, some which are occupied by one nation, some by many.

Ok. I changed planet to planets and recognized that not all are being destroyed.

No deal. Also this contradicts the current environmental resolution which is in place in the WA. This would effect the economy of the member states and also reducing productions and development, effecting the economy and bringing the economy down within the long run. Also it would raise taxes to a ridiciolous level and it is also a waste of time and money.

What if we combine my energy bill found here: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=10899&p=405424#p405424 with his? Mine is much softer on the economic impact....in fact, mine is geared more towards those nations who DO wish to develop greener technologies (which I have defined, rather specifically) to enable them to do so without overly huge costs that could damage their economy. Also, my proposal draft will work closely with WA #42, not change or anull it in anyway.

The Orion Federation wrote:What if we combine my energy bill found here: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=10899&p=405424#p405424 with his? Mine is much softer on the economic impact....in fact, mine is geared more towards those nations who DO wish to develop greener technologies (which I have defined, rather specifically) to enable them to do so without overly huge costs that could damage their economy. Also, my proposal draft will work closely with WA #42, not change or anull it in anyway.

This sounds reasonalbe.

Well, since you have hell of a lot more experience than I in the way the WA body works, you can use some of my wording I used in my draft, such as the definition of terms and such. I would be more than happy to work closely with you, ambassador, in drawing up the perfect, flawless, environmental bill that has the best chance of getting passed, and that can build upon, and expand #42.

For my nation is like your own. Orion is an island nation (actually, it is almost large enough to be its own continent) that is filled with the most beautiful, bountiful, forest land in existance. Being a newly created nation that finally won it's freedom from the imperialist mother country, we are trying to stand on our own two feet, building our economy, while protecting our most precious assets....the famous Forest of Orion!

The Orion Federation wrote:Well, since you have hell of a lot more experience than I in the way the WA body works, you can use some of my wording I used in my draft, such as the definition of terms and such. I would be more than happy to work closely with you, ambassador, in drawing up the perfect, flawless, environmental bill that has the best chance of getting passed, and that can build upon, and expand #42.

For my nation is like your own. Orion is an island nation (actually, it is almost large enough to be its own continent) that is filled with the most beautiful, bountiful, forest land in existance. Being a newly created nation that finally won it's freedom from the imperialist mother country, we are trying to stand on our own two feet, building our economy, while protecting our most precious assets....the famous Forest of Orion!

I dont actually have that much experience. I think if we expand GA #42 we have to repeal it.

Bergnovinaia wrote:

The Orion Federation wrote:Well, since you have hell of a lot more experience than I in the way the WA body works, you can use some of my wording I used in my draft, such as the definition of terms and such. I would be more than happy to work closely with you, ambassador, in drawing up the perfect, flawless, environmental bill that has the best chance of getting passed, and that can build upon, and expand #42.

For my nation is like your own. Orion is an island nation (actually, it is almost large enough to be its own continent) that is filled with the most beautiful, bountiful, forest land in existance. Being a newly created nation that finally won it's freedom from the imperialist mother country, we are trying to stand on our own two feet, building our economy, while protecting our most precious assets....the famous Forest of Orion!

I dont actually have that much experience. I think if we expand GA #42 we have to repeal it.

That seems pretty risky though. If we DO happen to get it repealed, there is no guarantee another such bill will be passed again.

I think, if you look at the provisions I set forth for a new organization, which doesn;t interfere with #42, except perhaps by getting valuable resources from that bill's organization. I think we CAN manage to create a workable, legal, bill that will only add strength to #42.

I suggest that we leaves things be.

I will never support this. My main reason is letting people believe in imaginary problems. There are real things happening in the world, that aren't based on the fearmongering of gullible individuals. Lets leave this be, and get on with things that really matter.

Malikov wrote:I will never support this. My main reason is letting people believe in imaginary problems. There are real things happening in the world, that aren't based on the fearmongering of gullible individuals. Lets leave this be, and get on with things that really matter.

Sorry ambassador, but I fail to see how pollution is an "imaginary" problem. I am not sure what environment your nation lives in, but in mine, all animals breathe oxygen, and expell carbon dioxide. All plants "breathe" carbon dioxide and expell oxygen. So even if global warming is not real, the threat of eventual suffocation by carbon dioxide in a century or two IS very real.

You see, by constantly strip mining through whole forests, we are destroying the very things that are adding oxygen to our atmosphere. And by using fossil fuels in increasingly alarming rates each year, we are adding even more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. What do you think would eventually happen if you're taking away 1 element that gives us sapients (in my environment, anyway), and adding an element that inherently suffocates the people?

The Orion Federation wrote:

Malikov wrote:I will never support this. My main reason is letting people believe in imaginary problems. There are real things happening in the world, that aren't based on the fearmongering of gullible individuals. Lets leave this be, and get on with things that really matter.

Sorry ambassador, but I fail to see how pollution is an "imaginary" problem. I am not sure what environment your nation lives in, but in mine, all animals breathe oxygen, and expell carbon dioxide. All plants "breathe" carbon dioxide and expell oxygen. So even if global warming is not real, the threat of eventual suffocation by carbon dioxide in a century or two IS very real.

You see, by constantly strip mining through whole forests, we are destroying the very things that are adding oxygen to our atmosphere. And by using fossil fuels in increasingly alarming rates each year, we are adding even more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. What do you think would eventually happen if you're taking away 1 element that gives us sapients (in my environment, anyway), and adding an element that inherently suffocates the people?

I realize what you are saying, however, many animals are able to live, correction, only able to live in an environment with high Co2 levels. Did you know that when Dinosaurs roamed the Earth the Co2 levels were so high, that current projections of human based activities recreating that environment would take so long, we would adapt to breathing Co2 before the level was reached? Humans can't control when, or how the Earth changes. The force of nature works its hand in ways that we can never control. We can't even accurately predict the weather. Forcasts are guess's, at best. Yes, it's true that having a larger percentage of trees covering Earth will result in more oxygen within the atmosphere, but that's not the only thing humans breathe. The atmosphere is made up of 72-78 percent nitrogen. Oxygen is also a poison, believe it or not. To much oxygen will knock out a human. So, I do see where your coming from, I really do, but it seems that your impression is that humans have a control over the environment that we will never have. This is why I feel that your proposal's goal is an unfortunate congregation of propganda and fearmongering, which is why i will never support this.

Malikov wrote:
I realize what you are saying, however, many animals are able to live, correction, only able to live in an environment with high Co2 levels. Did you know that when Dinosaurs roamed the Earth the Co2 levels were so high, that current projections of human based activities recreating that environment would take so long, we would adapt to breathing Co2 before the level was reached? Humans can't control when, or how the Earth changes. The force of nature works its hand in ways that we can never control. We can't even accurately predict the weather. Forcasts are guess's, at best. Yes, it's true that having a larger percentage of trees covering Earth will result in more oxygen within the atmosphere, but that's not the only thing humans breathe. The atmosphere is made up of 72-78 percent nitrogen. Oxygen is also a poison, believe it or not. To much oxygen will knock out a human. So, I do see where your coming from, I really do, but it seems that your impression is that humans have a control over the environment that we will never have. This is why I feel that your proposal's goal is an unfortunate congregation of propganda and fearmongering, which is why i will never support this.

I am not really "fear mongering" anything. At least, that is not my intention.

I also happen to know the specific mixture of gases we do breathe. I just say oxygen for simplicity sake. It is readily recognizable by most people. So let's try to put semantics aside, and get to the heart of the matter, shall we?

While I agree that we do not have complete control over our environment, it is also true that we are the only species that have been able to, and have, in fact, changed our environment (unaturalle, of course.) That alone, is significant. Since that is, indeed, a fact, then it is also a fact that we can, to some degree, affect the direction our environment is headed in. Currently, it is headed in the wrong direction from what our species happens to have adapted to flourish in.

btw, yes, it may have been possible for us to adapt to Co2, but it would not have been practical at all. In fact, the very reason why we have attained our sentience to begin with, and the very reason why modern animals are many, many times more intelligent than animals in the past is due to the fact that we use "oxygen" as our medium for breathing.

You see, you can do a simple experiment. Light a candle, and put it into an enclosed area (say a bell jar or something) and fill it with Co2. What happens is that the flame will die out. Take another bell jar (your control) and fill it with the air that we breathe. The candle will continue to burn.

Now, to make things more interesting, take a third bell jar and will it with....say....methane gas. The thing will flare up quite heartily indeed.

The point? Methane (being another gaseous alternative that we could have developed on) is extremely volitile (spelling?). It wouldn't really be safe for us to breath, because we could very easily spontaneously combust if we get too warm. Co2 does not carry enough energy for a flame to survive, and so, a more intelligent brain wouldn't have any real means to develop in such an environment. (The larger, more intelligent a brain, the more energy an animal needs. Dinosaurs has peanut-sized brains, so they didn't need anything more than Co2.) But oxygen is the perfect medium for truly complex lifeforms to develop sentience, or semi-sentience. It isn't too volitile, but is volitile enough for our purposes. One could even say it is the "perfect" gas (mixture of several different gases, as you already pointed out lol.)

So yes, trying to protect this invaluable gas would truly be in everyone's best interests. That is why I fail to see why any nation wouldn't support helping the environment, if a proposal could be built that wouldn't hurt any nation economically.

The fact remains that we can't control the environment. A single volcano, with one smal eruption, spews more Co2 into the air, then humans have ever released. There are multiple volcanic eruptions every day. I'm all for protecting trees, Heck, I've got a mini forest in my backyard, but it should be up to each indiviual nation to decide how they handle the environment.

It seems as though the draft you are proposing is centered around the environment as a whole, something that we have no control over. Keeping the Earth the way it is impossible. The Earth is always changing, the way it was meant to change. The sun, gravity, convection currents of magma under the crust, are all things that are out of our control, and that humans need to adapt to. Assuming that we can influence the worldwide biosphere is incredibly vain. Humans must adapt or die, and this draft would take funds away from government, such as my own, that are looking for ways to adapt.

That is why i will never support this draft, Ambassador.

Well, I am not going to get into an argument over whether we can or cannot affect the environment on a global scale. There are far too many so-called "studies" that both confirm, and deny this issue, anyway. I can provide links that confirms it, and is a credible, and I am sure you can provide links that denies it, that are also credible.

However, I have posted this link several times already: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=10899&p=418186#p418186

Perhaps you would be more inclined to support a bill that creates a centralized organization which collects funds from various generous sources, and distributes green technologies to those nations most in need of such? It wouldn't really cost your government, unless you seek the help from the organization to develop a new technology. In which case, the design of the new technology becomes the property of every nation, and you would forfeit any trading rights.

But then again, seeking the help of said organization to develop said technologies, would be on a completely voluntary basis anyway. Any technology you're nation develops is yours to trade away as you wish. The organization this bill sets up would simply help you to find a "buyer" for your new product.

Any interested nation in buying that product can also seek the help from this organization to secure the funds, if the nation meets certain criteria, such as a very minimal GDP. (I think I may add that as a clause later tonight, or tomorrow.)

The intent of this proposal is decent, but the articles still need fine-tuning.
AI/SI subsection b: Corporations (automobile industries may be too broad I think) that pursue research or obtain results with eco-friendly automobiles may request must Eco-friendlier automobiles should be defined as automobiles who just do LESS damages to the environment, not "not burn fossil fuels". More subsidies (or tax benefits!) could be obtained for "eco-friendlier" research. The corporations requesting the government funding should apply for the funding and provide substantial evidence of the eco-friendly research , and should be screened for this (to avoid abuse)

AI/SII subsection a: This will damage economies, and may be the thing that deters voters from supporting this resolution. There must be other ways to convince nations/corporations to decrease the use of uranium (which will eventually reduce uranium mining itself in the long run)
AI/SII subsection b: Nations and corporations doing research into alternative, safer ways of uranium waste disposals may request funding

AI/SIII subsection a&b: Propose that in order for wood chipping industries to chop down forests, they must afterwards replant the forest so that new trees may grow for the future, providing an ecological environment at least somewhat similar to the forest that was cut down. I'm not quite sure how to formulate this in a persuasive manner, I leave that up to you. The main issue in cutting down forests is the animal life and ecological consequences for the area. Proper scientific ecological studies must be done before any forest is to be cut down.
AI/SIII subsection c: One recycling center per region, and more is recommendable. How to put this in a persuasive manner is the question. Recycling could be encourage by separating waste (paper/cardboard; cans; biological (garden) waste; ...) and perhaps even an adhering trash pickup (citizens being provided with calendars of this) to promote recycling. "General landfill waste" trash pickup could become less available, and the needed materials for this (trash cans, trash bags, containers and private container pickup services) could be taxed to discourage use of these.

Lose the last paragraph, this will be THE thing that keeps people voting to pass this resolution. It is too "forced" and should not be included, or it should be rewrited not to FORCE nations into developing greener technology, but to encourage them to ADVANCE TOWARDS greener technology.

The Orion Federation wrote:Perhaps you would be more inclined to support a bill that creates a centralized organization which collects funds from various generous sources, and distributes green technologies to those nations most in need of such? It wouldn't really cost your government, unless you seek the help from the organization to develop a new technology. In which case, the design of the new technology becomes the property of every nation, and you would forfeit any trading rights.

But then again, seeking the help of said organization to develop said technologies, would be on a completely voluntary basis anyway. Any technology you're nation develops is yours to trade away as you wish. The organization this bill sets up would simply help you to find a "buyer" for your new product.

Any interested nation in buying that product can also seek the help from this organization to secure the funds, if the nation meets certain criteria, such as a very minimal GDP. (I think I may add that as a clause later tonight, or tomorrow.)

I would be much more interested. A draft that boosts the economy, and satisfy's environmental wackos (no offense).

If this ever comes up for vote, I plan on voting against this monstrosity.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

The Altani Federation is already researching and implementing greentech, with great success. However, this draft as currently constituted would cause significant damage to our economy, which would also limit our ability to further research green technologies and implement them. We feel it would do the same to other nations as well. Therefore, we will oppose this if it is brought to vote.

-Irina Misheli, Ambassador