[PASSED] Repeal "Protecting Native Prairies & Grasslands"

[Daarwyrth]

Vice-Representative Jylien Barwald: "May the legislators among our delegation take any more feedback and commentary regarding this draft? Any new thoughts would be a most welcome sight to our team."

[Daarwyrth]

Vice-Representative Jylien Barwald: "With the invaluable assistance that was offered by the delegation of Uan aa Boa through private channels, our delegation presents a new version of this proposal draft. As usual, commentary is most welcome."

[Tinhampton]

*looks at the new Argument 4* Who's writing the replacement?

[Daarwyrth]

*looks at the new Argument 4* Who's writing the replacement?

OOC: A few of us Forestians are brainstorming at the moment

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: After a brief discussion in the WA Discord, I decided to revert to draft 6 with a few alterations, such as the removal of the wildfires clause, and I tweaked the wording in Clause 1 somewhat. While I appreciate the previous suggestions that had formed the previous draft, to me personally the text of draft 6 felt a little stronger, which is why I decided to go back to that.

In addition, I am thinking of submitting this today so any last comments and feedback on the current draft would be most welcome!

[Daarwyrth]

Dame Maria vyn Nysen: "About an hour ago, our delegation submitted this repeal proposal to the General Assembly. We express our sincerest gratitude to all who contributed to this repeal proposal through feedback, commentary and their thoughts, and hope we can count on the support of the honourable delegates of the World Assembly through their approval of Repeal: “Protecting Native Prairies And Grasslands”."

[South Boston Irishmen]

I will not be voting to bring this repeal to the floor. I understand some may call it too restrictive, but we have seen time and time again that nations and corporations and people alike cannot be trusted to do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do. Restrictions are necessary to make sure that everyone knows failure to cooperate will result in punishment.

[Daarwyrth]

I will not be voting to bring this repeal to the floor. I understand some may call it too restrictive, but we have seen time and time again that nations and corporations and people alike cannot be trusted to do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do. Restrictions are necessary to make sure that everyone knows failure to cooperate will result in punishment.

Dame Maria vyn Nysen: "And why should this protection only be granted to Priaries and Grasslands? What about taiga? Mangroves? Savannas? Tundra? What makes prairie tall grasses so special that they need to be protected by a singular proposal? Daarwyrth has no prairie tall grasses within its borders, and I can imagine a great deal of nations have never even heard of this particular biome. Why should it receive protection on its own, instead of granting protection to all unique environments of the World Assembly?"

OOC: I absolutely support environmentalism, I made Forest my home region after all (fun fact, our region had a majority voting 'against' the target resolution). Yet did you know that prairie tall grasses only appear in the US and a few parts of Canada? They are very rare and don't occur anywhere else in the world. Do they deserve protection? Absolutely, but not in an individual resolution, especially because they're so rare in the real world. Besides, as the repeal proposal says, GAR #465 "Preventing Species Extinction" does a much, much better job at protecting endangered species - species of endangered prairie tall grasses include - and even promotes tailored approaches to environmental protections. GAR #553 is nothing more but a chokehold that protects an environment that in reality most of the world never has known. There's no reason why prairie tall grasses should receive its own resolution, when there are so many unique environments.

Besides, it's not "a bit restrictive", GAR #553 prevents all development in and around prairies. Imagine a nation has almost exclusively prairie tall grasses as its primary biome, that means they can't do anything anymore. No new roads, no new housing, no new hospitals, no agriculture, no produce. Those nations will be literally choked to death because of this resolution, and I am not exaggerating:

"preventing land development for any purpose in tall grass prairies;"

preventing human activities that have been found to be detrimental to the ecosystem, according to clause 3b, in the areas surrounding tall grass prairies; and

And don't forget, prairie tall grasses can be an invasive species to other, unique and delicate environments. GAR #553 prevents prairie tall grasses to be destroyed in nations where they would be an invasive species. Imagine if prairie tall grasses choked off Daarwyrthian plants and grasses. Daarwyrth should have the ability to destroy the invasive species to protect its own environment, but it can't because of this resolution. Surely you don't consider it fair that Daarwyrth's ecosystem would die, just because someone wanted to protect prairie tall grasses, even though the WA community advised in numbers against submitting the issue?

There is no need for a destructive resolution such as GAR #553, when there's the far better and more reasonable GAR #465. Besides, do you want the bureaucracy of the WA to be bloated by an individual resolution on every single unique biome there is? It would create a massive mess and headache for the WA, which already has a fairly bloated bureaucracy.

[South Boston Irishmen]

You don't need to repeal this legislation in order to include other areas, you can simply write other pieces of legislation for those areas. People continue to destroy more and more areas of our planet and do very little to compensate for that loss. I am quite fine with the restrictions put into place, because I'd like there to still be a planet worth living on in a few hundred years.

[Daarwyrth]

You don't need to repeal this legislation in order to include other areas, you can simply write other pieces of legislation for those areas. People continue to destroy more and more areas of our planet and do very little to compensate for that loss. I am quite fine with the restrictions put into place, because I'd like there to still be a planet worth living on in a few hundred years.

OOC: You realise that the NationStates universe is something entirely different than the real world? There are nations here that span across entire galaxies, and this resolution affects them as well. Yes, climate change is a real issue in the real world that absolutely needs to be dealt with, but NationStates is its own multiverse with its own reality. That's one of the problems of the target resolution, it completely forgets and ignores that.

And if there is a resolution on every single unique environment, then we'll end up with a bloated bureaucratic monster that functions anything but efficiently. A single resolution on the topic of unique environments is the workable way forward, to accommodate nations with unique or even self-made biospheres. There's no reason why they shouldn't be protected.

Plus, as I said, this resolution slowly chokes developing nations, while forbidding nations from saving their own environments from prairie tall grasses as invasive species. The environment deserves protection, but GAR #553 is not the right resolution to provide that protection.

[Outer Sparta]

You don't need to repeal this legislation in order to include other areas, you can simply write other pieces of legislation for those areas. People continue to destroy more and more areas of our planet and do very little to compensate for that loss. I am quite fine with the restrictions put into place, because I'd like there to still be a planet worth living on in a few hundred years.

I'd prefer a catch-all resolution on protecting habitats that is workable to include all different kinds instead of having a million individual resolutions on habitat protection ranging from taiga, tundra, boreal forest, deciduous forest, baobab forest, tropical rainforest, temperate rainforest, chaparral, tropical shrubland, Alpine grassland, etc.

[Daarwyrth]

You don't need to repeal this legislation in order to include other areas, you can simply write other pieces of legislation for those areas. People continue to destroy more and more areas of our planet and do very little to compensate for that loss. I am quite fine with the restrictions put into place, because I'd like there to still be a planet worth living on in a few hundred years.

I'd prefer a catch-all resolution on protecting habitats that is workable to include all different kinds instead of having a million individual resolutions on habitat protection ranging from taiga, tundra, boreal forest, deciduous forest, baobab forest, tropical rainforest, temperate rainforest, chaparral, tropical shrubland, Alpine grassland, etc.

OOC: Exactly, it will have an impact on all nations and all unique environments, and not every single habitat individually. Taiga is going to affect only a certain amount of nations, the same goes for mangrove, or any other biosphere.

But even player-made environments, that are a product of pure creativity and fantasy. Why should those environments not get any protection? Or fantasy environments? A catch-all resolution won't need to mention every single environment, but will also include protections for those.

[South Boston Irishmen]

You realize that poor attempts at sounding condescending aren't going to boost your cause? Having been in NS for all of 17 years, I do happen to notice that there are differences between NS and IRL, thank you for further clarifying.

[Outer Sparta]

You realize that poor attempts at sounding condescending aren't going to boost your cause? Having been in NS for all of 17 years, I do happen to notice that there are differences between NS and IRL, thank you for further clarifying.

You realize that you aren't getting anywhere by advocating for unnecessary resolutions that have to cover for every single possible biome and habitat imaginable? Like an individual resolution about protecting chaparrals is clearly not necessary.

[Daarwyrth]

You realize that poor attempts at sounding condescending aren't going to boost your cause? Having been in NS for all of 17 years, I do happen to notice that there are differences between NS and IRL, thank you for further clarifying.

OOC: I apologise if I sounded condescending to you, it was not meant as such. I was merely defending my viewpoint regarding this repeal, as from your reply to my post I had the feeling you weren't truly reading what I was saying, especially because several arguments I had brought forth had remained entirely unaddressed. Especially when you started on the real world, that felt like a conflation of affairs to me. Because while I too want there to be a planet worth living on in a few hundred years, I don't see how that is a relevant argument for affairs in a fictional multiverse like NationStates. Hence why I raised the point about NS being its own thing, etc. etc., it was not a condescending remark, but it isn't immediately apparent how long someone has been on NS by simply looking at their flag. Granted, I should have checked when your nation was founded, but even with that in mind I don't understand why you made those statements about reality. Especially because they didn't address the arguments I had made before.

[Kardashev III Civilization]

The obelisk, surrounded by a strange turquoise sheen, phases through the wall of the drafting room and moves uncomfortably close to vyn Nysen. "Once again, our decision merely to observe this organization's procedure rather than participate proves its rewards. Even among the few planetbound cultures, it is well understood that grasslands are a sub-optimal environment. Sustainable planets are better served by the conservation of wetlands, tropical forests, neritic zones, and polar deserts, and the development of agri-arcologies, sea foundries, low orbit interfaces, solar provinces, and open-pit mines. This repeal rightly draws attention to the inability for semi-civilized cultures to pave grasslands, even low-lying ones, with photosynthetic substrate, which is more efficient and sustainable by several orders of magnitude.

"Of course, the greatest issue here is with its effective ban on planetary deconstruction. It is not reasonable to expect cultures to preserve sections of a planet covered in grassland while it harvests the rest of the planet for its resources. The costs involved in relocating these grassland portions and upkeeping them indefinitely far exceed the immediate value of the planet's minerals if the planet is sufficiently covered in grassland."

The top of the obelisk vibrates for two or three seconds. The turquoise sheen dissipates, allowing better view of its sleek metal exterior and enormous bank of occasionally blinking lights. "Foolish creatures drive this organization, their mercurial impulses often guiding it toward disaster. Perhaps there remains time to correct some of its worst mistakes. This repeal is satisfactory, Representative vyn Nysen."

The obelisk recedes, smashing straight through the wall it had emerged from. More smashing can be heard as it foregoes the use of the hallways or stairs en route to its next destination.

[Greater Cesnica]

Targeted campaign sent to delegates who approved the repeal:

Hello Select Delegates of the World Assembly!

I am messaging you today to ask that you withdraw your support from Repeal: "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands"

Unfortunately, many of the claims presented in the repeal are misleading and untrue.

Claim #1
"GAR #553 shows its complete disregard for the diversity among the members of this international assembly, and incompetence at adequately implementing reasonable and workable protection plans for a species that it claims is endangered, by effectively halting any and all development in nations where prairie tall grasses are a prevalent, if not dominant biosphere. Not only will this cause great economic disaster because of a lack of progress and development - especially in still developing member nations with widespread and prevalent prairies - but it will eventually bring about severe housing and food shortages, and dangerous overpopulation in those member states as a result."

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 the idea that GA 553 prohibits all development is simply not true.

Additionally, 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. Allowing this level of role-play to interfere with the workings of the General Assembly would have disastrous consequences for future environmental regulations.

Claim #2
"Furthermore, the target resolution makes the grave error of presuming that prairie tall grasses are prevalent across all member nations. This is not only a show of ignorance regarding the diverse nature of the members of this international body, but also harbours an incredible danger to unique and delicate ecosystems, to which this particular species of tall grasses would be a destructive invasive species. GAR #553 therefore prevents member nations from destroying these prairie tall grasses as an invasive species in order to protect and preserve their own threatened ecosystems."

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, 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. The argument presented in this claim is intentionally misleading. The author of the repeal was notified numerous times that their claim is untrue, yet they proceeded to include it in the repeal. I believe that the proposal will likely be declared illegal due to this, as it constitutes an honest mistake.

Claim #3
"In addition, GAR #553 unnecessarily places onerous restrictions on member nations, when General Assembly Resolution #465 "Preventing Species Extinction" already charges member nations in Clause 2 "to develop and faithfully implement WAESC-approved conservation plans to protect all at-risk species within their own jurisdiction". Furthermore, GAR #465 approaches the subject of at-risk species protection in a detailed and reasonable manner, creating provisions that compensate those negatively impacted by the protection plans, while GAR #553 is a superfluous piece of inflexible bureaucracy in comparison, with destructive consequences to developing member nations in tow."

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 GA 553 is that it continues to protect the tallgrass prairie habitat once species have recovered enough to no longer be endangered. This allows nations 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.

Claim #4
"Lastly, GAR #553 inexplicably singles out ecosystems with prairie tall grasses, while completely ignoring other equally unique and valuable biospheres. It sets the undesirable precedent for an individual resolution for every single rare ecosystem in existence, instead of either relying upon the protections that GAR #465 already provides for truly endangered species, or establishing one resolution that legislates on the subject of unique ecosystems efficiently."

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 and 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). Thus the claim that GA 553 sets the precedent for individual legislation for every single rare ecosystem on the planet is moot.

GA 553 does a lot of good work to protect and preserve critical tallgrass prairie habitat, which performs vital ecological and economic functions, such as runoff filtration, preventing soil erosion, and providing habitat for pollinator species who are beneficial to both agriculture and local flora.

The redaction of this resolution would have dire economic and environmental consequences for both individual nations and the world assembly as a whole. Once again, I must urge you to withdraw your support from Repeal: "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands".

Thank you,

Big Boyz

[Ardiveds]

Targeted campaign sent to delegates who approved the repeal:

Hello Select Delegates of the World Assembly!

I am messaging you today to ask that you withdraw your support from Repeal: "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands"

Unfortunately, many of the claims presented in the repeal are misleading and untrue.

Claim #1
"GAR #553 shows its complete disregard for the diversity among the members of this international assembly, and incompetence at adequately implementing reasonable and workable protection plans for a species that it claims is endangered, by effectively halting any and all development in nations where prairie tall grasses are a prevalent, if not dominant biosphere. Not only will this cause great economic disaster because of a lack of progress and development - especially in still developing member nations with widespread and prevalent prairies - but it will eventually bring about severe housing and food shortages, and dangerous overpopulation in those member states as a result."

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 the idea that GA 553 prohibits all development is simply not true.

Additionally, 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. Allowing this level of role-play to interfere with the workings of the General Assembly would have disastrous consequences for future environmental regulations.

Claim #2
"Furthermore, the target resolution makes the grave error of presuming that prairie tall grasses are prevalent across all member nations. This is not only a show of ignorance regarding the diverse nature of the members of this international body, but also harbours an incredible danger to unique and delicate ecosystems, to which this particular species of tall grasses would be a destructive invasive species. GAR #553 therefore prevents member nations from destroying these prairie tall grasses as an invasive species in order to protect and preserve their own threatened ecosystems."

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, 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. The argument presented in this claim is intentionally misleading. The author of the repeal was notified numerous times that their claim is untrue, yet they proceeded to include it in the repeal. I believe that the proposal will likely be declared illegal due to this, as it constitutes an honest mistake.

Claim #3
"In addition, GAR #553 unnecessarily places onerous restrictions on member nations, when General Assembly Resolution #465 "Preventing Species Extinction" already charges member nations in Clause 2 "to develop and faithfully implement WAESC-approved conservation plans to protect all at-risk species within their own jurisdiction". Furthermore, GAR #465 approaches the subject of at-risk species protection in a detailed and reasonable manner, creating provisions that compensate those negatively impacted by the protection plans, while GAR #553 is a superfluous piece of inflexible bureaucracy in comparison, with destructive consequences to developing member nations in tow."

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 GA 553 is that it continues to protect the tallgrass prairie habitat once species have recovered enough to no longer be endangered. This allows nations 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.

Claim #4
"Lastly, GAR #553 inexplicably singles out ecosystems with prairie tall grasses, while completely ignoring other equally unique and valuable biospheres. It sets the undesirable precedent for an individual resolution for every single rare ecosystem in existence, instead of either relying upon the protections that GAR #465 already provides for truly endangered species, or establishing one resolution that legislates on the subject of unique ecosystems efficiently."

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 and 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). Thus the claim that GA 553 sets the precedent for individual legislation for every single rare ecosystem on the planet is moot.

GA 553 does a lot of good work to protect and preserve critical tallgrass prairie habitat, which performs vital ecological and economic functions, such as runoff filtration, preventing soil erosion, and providing habitat for pollinator species who are beneficial to both agriculture and local flora.

The redaction of this resolution would have dire economic and environmental consequences for both individual nations and the world assembly as a whole. Once again, I must urge you to withdraw your support from Repeal: "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands".

Thank you,

Big Boyz

OOC: Dude is ready to die for his grasses if need be

[Greater Cesnica]

Targeted campaign sent to delegates who approved the repeal:

Hello Select Delegates of the World Assembly!

I am messaging you today to ask that you withdraw your support from Repeal: "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands"

Unfortunately, many of the claims presented in the repeal are misleading and untrue.

Claim #1
"GAR #553 shows its complete disregard for the diversity among the members of this international assembly, and incompetence at adequately implementing reasonable and workable protection plans for a species that it claims is endangered, by effectively halting any and all development in nations where prairie tall grasses are a prevalent, if not dominant biosphere. Not only will this cause great economic disaster because of a lack of progress and development - especially in still developing member nations with widespread and prevalent prairies - but it will eventually bring about severe housing and food shortages, and dangerous overpopulation in those member states as a result."

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 the idea that GA 553 prohibits all development is simply not true.

Additionally, 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. Allowing this level of role-play to interfere with the workings of the General Assembly would have disastrous consequences for future environmental regulations.

Claim #2
"Furthermore, the target resolution makes the grave error of presuming that prairie tall grasses are prevalent across all member nations. This is not only a show of ignorance regarding the diverse nature of the members of this international body, but also harbours an incredible danger to unique and delicate ecosystems, to which this particular species of tall grasses would be a destructive invasive species. GAR #553 therefore prevents member nations from destroying these prairie tall grasses as an invasive species in order to protect and preserve their own threatened ecosystems."

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, 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. The argument presented in this claim is intentionally misleading. The author of the repeal was notified numerous times that their claim is untrue, yet they proceeded to include it in the repeal. I believe that the proposal will likely be declared illegal due to this, as it constitutes an honest mistake.

Claim #3
"In addition, GAR #553 unnecessarily places onerous restrictions on member nations, when General Assembly Resolution #465 "Preventing Species Extinction" already charges member nations in Clause 2 "to develop and faithfully implement WAESC-approved conservation plans to protect all at-risk species within their own jurisdiction". Furthermore, GAR #465 approaches the subject of at-risk species protection in a detailed and reasonable manner, creating provisions that compensate those negatively impacted by the protection plans, while GAR #553 is a superfluous piece of inflexible bureaucracy in comparison, with destructive consequences to developing member nations in tow."

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 GA 553 is that it continues to protect the tallgrass prairie habitat once species have recovered enough to no longer be endangered. This allows nations 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.

Claim #4
"Lastly, GAR #553 inexplicably singles out ecosystems with prairie tall grasses, while completely ignoring other equally unique and valuable biospheres. It sets the undesirable precedent for an individual resolution for every single rare ecosystem in existence, instead of either relying upon the protections that GAR #465 already provides for truly endangered species, or establishing one resolution that legislates on the subject of unique ecosystems efficiently."

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 and 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). Thus the claim that GA 553 sets the precedent for individual legislation for every single rare ecosystem on the planet is moot.

GA 553 does a lot of good work to protect and preserve critical tallgrass prairie habitat, which performs vital ecological and economic functions, such as runoff filtration, preventing soil erosion, and providing habitat for pollinator species who are beneficial to both agriculture and local flora.

The redaction of this resolution would have dire economic and environmental consequences for both individual nations and the world assembly as a whole. Once again, I must urge you to withdraw your support from Repeal: "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands".

Thank you,

Big Boyz

OOC: Dude is ready to die for his grasses if need be

OOC: Them grasses tho ;(

[Outer Sparta]

Targeted campaign sent to delegates who approved the repeal:

Hello Select Delegates of the World Assembly!

I am messaging you today to ask that you withdraw your support from Repeal: "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands"

Unfortunately, many of the claims presented in the repeal are misleading and untrue.

Claim #1
"GAR #553 shows its complete disregard for the diversity among the members of this international assembly, and incompetence at adequately implementing reasonable and workable protection plans for a species that it claims is endangered, by effectively halting any and all development in nations where prairie tall grasses are a prevalent, if not dominant biosphere. Not only will this cause great economic disaster because of a lack of progress and development - especially in still developing member nations with widespread and prevalent prairies - but it will eventually bring about severe housing and food shortages, and dangerous overpopulation in those member states as a result."

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 the idea that GA 553 prohibits all development is simply not true.

Additionally, 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. Allowing this level of role-play to interfere with the workings of the General Assembly would have disastrous consequences for future environmental regulations.

Claim #2
"Furthermore, the target resolution makes the grave error of presuming that prairie tall grasses are prevalent across all member nations. This is not only a show of ignorance regarding the diverse nature of the members of this international body, but also harbours an incredible danger to unique and delicate ecosystems, to which this particular species of tall grasses would be a destructive invasive species. GAR #553 therefore prevents member nations from destroying these prairie tall grasses as an invasive species in order to protect and preserve their own threatened ecosystems."

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, 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. The argument presented in this claim is intentionally misleading. The author of the repeal was notified numerous times that their claim is untrue, yet they proceeded to include it in the repeal. I believe that the proposal will likely be declared illegal due to this, as it constitutes an honest mistake.

Claim #3
"In addition, GAR #553 unnecessarily places onerous restrictions on member nations, when General Assembly Resolution #465 "Preventing Species Extinction" already charges member nations in Clause 2 "to develop and faithfully implement WAESC-approved conservation plans to protect all at-risk species within their own jurisdiction". Furthermore, GAR #465 approaches the subject of at-risk species protection in a detailed and reasonable manner, creating provisions that compensate those negatively impacted by the protection plans, while GAR #553 is a superfluous piece of inflexible bureaucracy in comparison, with destructive consequences to developing member nations in tow."

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 GA 553 is that it continues to protect the tallgrass prairie habitat once species have recovered enough to no longer be endangered. This allows nations 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.

Claim #4
"Lastly, GAR #553 inexplicably singles out ecosystems with prairie tall grasses, while completely ignoring other equally unique and valuable biospheres. It sets the undesirable precedent for an individual resolution for every single rare ecosystem in existence, instead of either relying upon the protections that GAR #465 already provides for truly endangered species, or establishing one resolution that legislates on the subject of unique ecosystems efficiently."

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 and 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). Thus the claim that GA 553 sets the precedent for individual legislation for every single rare ecosystem on the planet is moot.

GA 553 does a lot of good work to protect and preserve critical tallgrass prairie habitat, which performs vital ecological and economic functions, such as runoff filtration, preventing soil erosion, and providing habitat for pollinator species who are beneficial to both agriculture and local flora.

The redaction of this resolution would have dire economic and environmental consequences for both individual nations and the world assembly as a whole. Once again, I must urge you to withdraw your support from Repeal: "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands".

Thank you,

Big Boyz

OOC: Dude is ready to die for his grasses if need be

Apparently it's only tall prairie grasses that count for them. Where's the love for savannas, short prairie grasses, montane grasslands, tundra grasslands, and chaparrals at?

[Daarwyrth]

Targeted campaign sent to delegates who approved the repeal:

Hello Select Delegates of the World Assembly!

I am messaging you today to ask that you withdraw your support from Repeal: "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands"

Unfortunately, many of the claims presented in the repeal are misleading and untrue.

Claim #1
"GAR #553 shows its complete disregard for the diversity among the members of this international assembly, and incompetence at adequately implementing reasonable and workable protection plans for a species that it claims is endangered, by effectively halting any and all development in nations where prairie tall grasses are a prevalent, if not dominant biosphere. Not only will this cause great economic disaster because of a lack of progress and development - especially in still developing member nations with widespread and prevalent prairies - but it will eventually bring about severe housing and food shortages, and dangerous overpopulation in those member states as a result."

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 the idea that GA 553 prohibits all development is simply not true.

Additionally, 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. Allowing this level of role-play to interfere with the workings of the General Assembly would have disastrous consequences for future environmental regulations.

Claim #2
"Furthermore, the target resolution makes the grave error of presuming that prairie tall grasses are prevalent across all member nations. This is not only a show of ignorance regarding the diverse nature of the members of this international body, but also harbours an incredible danger to unique and delicate ecosystems, to which this particular species of tall grasses would be a destructive invasive species. GAR #553 therefore prevents member nations from destroying these prairie tall grasses as an invasive species in order to protect and preserve their own threatened ecosystems."

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, 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. The argument presented in this claim is intentionally misleading. The author of the repeal was notified numerous times that their claim is untrue, yet they proceeded to include it in the repeal. I believe that the proposal will likely be declared illegal due to this, as it constitutes an honest mistake.

Claim #3
"In addition, GAR #553 unnecessarily places onerous restrictions on member nations, when General Assembly Resolution #465 "Preventing Species Extinction" already charges member nations in Clause 2 "to develop and faithfully implement WAESC-approved conservation plans to protect all at-risk species within their own jurisdiction". Furthermore, GAR #465 approaches the subject of at-risk species protection in a detailed and reasonable manner, creating provisions that compensate those negatively impacted by the protection plans, while GAR #553 is a superfluous piece of inflexible bureaucracy in comparison, with destructive consequences to developing member nations in tow."

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 GA 553 is that it continues to protect the tallgrass prairie habitat once species have recovered enough to no longer be endangered. This allows nations 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.

Claim #4
"Lastly, GAR #553 inexplicably singles out ecosystems with prairie tall grasses, while completely ignoring other equally unique and valuable biospheres. It sets the undesirable precedent for an individual resolution for every single rare ecosystem in existence, instead of either relying upon the protections that GAR #465 already provides for truly endangered species, or establishing one resolution that legislates on the subject of unique ecosystems efficiently."

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 and 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). Thus the claim that GA 553 sets the precedent for individual legislation for every single rare ecosystem on the planet is moot.

GA 553 does a lot of good work to protect and preserve critical tallgrass prairie habitat, which performs vital ecological and economic functions, such as runoff filtration, preventing soil erosion, and providing habitat for pollinator species who are beneficial to both agriculture and local flora.

The redaction of this resolution would have dire economic and environmental consequences for both individual nations and the world assembly as a whole. Once again, I must urge you to withdraw your support from Repeal: "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands".

Thank you,

Big Boyz

OOC: Thank you for informing me about this! I will have some breakfast first, and then proceed to write up the counter-campaign.

[Jedinsto]

Targeted campaign sent to delegates who approved the repeal:

Hello Select Delegates of the World Assembly!

I am messaging you today to ask that you withdraw your support from Repeal: "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands"

Unfortunately, many of the claims presented in the repeal are misleading and untrue.

Claim #1
"GAR #553 shows its complete disregard for the diversity among the members of this international assembly, and incompetence at adequately implementing reasonable and workable protection plans for a species that it claims is endangered, by effectively halting any and all development in nations where prairie tall grasses are a prevalent, if not dominant biosphere. Not only will this cause great economic disaster because of a lack of progress and development - especially in still developing member nations with widespread and prevalent prairies - but it will eventually bring about severe housing and food shortages, and dangerous overpopulation in those member states as a result."

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 the idea that GA 553 prohibits all development is simply not true.

Additionally, 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. Allowing this level of role-play to interfere with the workings of the General Assembly would have disastrous consequences for future environmental regulations.

Claim #2
"Furthermore, the target resolution makes the grave error of presuming that prairie tall grasses are prevalent across all member nations. This is not only a show of ignorance regarding the diverse nature of the members of this international body, but also harbours an incredible danger to unique and delicate ecosystems, to which this particular species of tall grasses would be a destructive invasive species. GAR #553 therefore prevents member nations from destroying these prairie tall grasses as an invasive species in order to protect and preserve their own threatened ecosystems."

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, 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. The argument presented in this claim is intentionally misleading. The author of the repeal was notified numerous times that their claim is untrue, yet they proceeded to include it in the repeal. I believe that the proposal will likely be declared illegal due to this, as it constitutes an honest mistake.

Claim #3
"In addition, GAR #553 unnecessarily places onerous restrictions on member nations, when General Assembly Resolution #465 "Preventing Species Extinction" already charges member nations in Clause 2 "to develop and faithfully implement WAESC-approved conservation plans to protect all at-risk species within their own jurisdiction". Furthermore, GAR #465 approaches the subject of at-risk species protection in a detailed and reasonable manner, creating provisions that compensate those negatively impacted by the protection plans, while GAR #553 is a superfluous piece of inflexible bureaucracy in comparison, with destructive consequences to developing member nations in tow."

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 GA 553 is that it continues to protect the tallgrass prairie habitat once species have recovered enough to no longer be endangered. This allows nations 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.

Claim #4
"Lastly, GAR #553 inexplicably singles out ecosystems with prairie tall grasses, while completely ignoring other equally unique and valuable biospheres. It sets the undesirable precedent for an individual resolution for every single rare ecosystem in existence, instead of either relying upon the protections that GAR #465 already provides for truly endangered species, or establishing one resolution that legislates on the subject of unique ecosystems efficiently."

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 and 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). Thus the claim that GA 553 sets the precedent for individual legislation for every single rare ecosystem on the planet is moot.

GA 553 does a lot of good work to protect and preserve critical tallgrass prairie habitat, which performs vital ecological and economic functions, such as runoff filtration, preventing soil erosion, and providing habitat for pollinator species who are beneficial to both agriculture and local flora.

The redaction of this resolution would have dire economic and environmental consequences for both individual nations and the world assembly as a whole. Once again, I must urge you to withdraw your support from Repeal: "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands".

Thank you,

Big Boyz

OOC: Thank you for informing me about this! I will have some breakfast first, and then proceed to write up the counter-campaign.

Please don't. No one will read Big boyz' counter-campaign, and they will surely not read a counter of the counter.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Thank you for informing me about this! I will have some breakfast first, and then proceed to write up the counter-campaign.

Please don't. No one will read Big boyz' counter-campaign, and they will surely not read a counter of the counter.

I'm fairly sure people have read the counter-campaign and withdrawn approvals.

[Outer Sparta]

OOC: Thank you for informing me about this! I will have some breakfast first, and then proceed to write up the counter-campaign.

Please don't. No one will read Big boyz' counter-campaign, and they will surely not read a counter of the counter.

Counter-campaigns can still be successful. Besides, they are doing it to prevent the repeal from going to vote and potentially passing, meaning they might see the writing on the wall at this point.

[Daarwyrth]

OOC:

Esteemed Delegate,

It has come to my attention that the author of GAR #553 "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands" has launched a counter-campaign against my repeal proposal "Repeal: “Protecting Native Prairies And Grasslands”".

I have to admit, the author's commitment to see prairie tall grasses protected - not the environment in general however, it's only prairie tall grasses that seem to concern him - is impressive, yet his counter-argumentation is flawed and faulty regardless. To not prolong the length of this telegram, here is a full transcript of the counter-campaign sent by Big Boyz. I have spoilered each of my counter-arguments to Big Boyz's counter-campaign, and leave it up to you whether you want to read the entirety, or only parts of it.

I apologise for the length in advance, yet considering the nature of the counter-campaign, I felt it was only fair I had the chance to properly address it.

Regarding Claim #1

The author continues to wade in his misconception that the World Assembly is made up exactly the way he wants it to be. He ignores the fact that the World Assembly is made up by highly advanced nations, and nations that are still in the early stages of development regarding technology, economy and society, and everything in-between. Big Boyz appears to be saying that there is only one type of nation in the World Assembly: fully developed states that no longer need to develop any further. Does that go up for your nation? I know for a fact that Daarwyrth is by no means done with its economic, technological and societal development, even though I play it as a post-modern tech civilization. As you can see, the author willingly ignores the nature of the WA member nations.

The author also seems to be unaware of the fact how his own resolution functions. I refer you to Clause 3.d.iii of "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands":

"preventing human activities that have been found to be detrimental to the ecosystem, according to clause 3b, in the areas surrounding tall grass prairies;"

The author claims that development around tall grass prairies is permitted, yet his own resolution is contradicting him.

Big Boyz also claims that nation role-plays should not be taken into account, yet the World Assembly even refers in its resolutions to "sapients" or "natural persons" to accommodate the role-playing of nations where the population is made up of aliens instead of humans. Taking into account the various role-plays of nations and regions is exactly what the World Assembly has done for a long time in its resolutions, and there is no viable argument 'for' why Big Boyz's resolution should be exempt from that.

If a nation's biosphere consists almost exclusively of prairie tall grasses, then they won't be able to develop in those prairie tall grasses, or, according to Clause 3.d.iii, in the areas around them. This is an oversight that has to be taken into account by the World Assembly, as it will quite literally ruin that nation's economy and chances at continued development. The author can't simply dismiss those nations because they are inconvenient to him. The resolution is inflicting disproportional damage to nations (especially developing ones) where the prevalent or dominant biosphere is prairie tall grasses, and that has to be addressed and accommodated.

Regarding Claim #2

The author continues to operate on the misconception that the situation of prairie tall grasses in the real world can be transposed one-on-one to the multiverse of NationStates. He presumes to speak for nations and dictate that their prairie tall grasses are a threatened ecosystem, when a nation may be role-playing that the prairie tall grasses are doing perfectly fine. Yet the author doesn't want to admit that, the author apparently wants to dictate how prairie tall grasses need to be roleplayed in NationStates. That doesn't seem right to me at all.

Big Boyz also claims that, I quote, "I believe that the proposal will likely be declared illegal due to this, as it constitutes an honest mistake". This is simply untrue. The author has no way of knowing whether the challenge will be ruled in his favour, and as it happens, two of the GenSec members have already voted my repeal proposal and its argumentation to be legal.

The author also continues to misunderstand his own resolution. "Naturally occurring" means that something occurs in a nation by natural means, not by artificial interference. If a prairie tall grass naturally grows into a region where it would be an invasive species to that nation's ecosystem, it would be "naturally occurring". The author should have instead stated "originally occurring" or "natively occurring" if he wanted to mean what he says in his counter-argumentation. After all, the law does, as the law says, not how its author intended it to be. As such, altering the "naturally occurring form" in the event that prairie tall grasses grow into a nation naturally continue to be prohibited by the text of the resolution in question, even though the author ignores the wording of his resolution in his counter-arguments.

Furthermore, Clause 3.d.iii continues to be a part of the resolution that the author ignores. Preventing the spread of an invasive species is, if it's done by humans, a human activity. In addition, stopping a species from reproducing itself and thus from growing its numbers is in fact detrimental, as it would be considered detrimental for any species to be restricted as such. And stopping the spread of an invasive species doesn't merely mean eradicating itself, but it also means to take measures in the area around which it occurs. Yet alas, Clause 3.d.iii prevents any human activity surrounding prairie tall grasses. Apparently, the native environment of a nation is less important than prairie tall grasses, from the perspective of the resolution.

Regarding Claim #3

What nation would reasonably want to bring its environment to the brink of extinction, and then wait a number of years to have the environment restore itself to repeat the process again? It's absurd, and not a course of action any reasonable nation would willingly want to take.

GAR #465 offers excellent protections to endangered species, and allows for the creation of tailored protection plans that take into account the unique nature of every nation, and of every ecosystem. It is a much better resolution than GAR #553 is, as it is flexible, it works with nations and not against them, and already encompasses all species in existence, prairie tall grasses included.

And if the author wants to protect environments that are becoming at-risk of becoming endangered, then there is no reason why prairie tall grasses should be singled out. All unique environments deserve such protections, but it would be a bloated bureaucratic monster to have an individual resolution on every single rare environment in existence. Not efficient, not workable.

Regarding Claim #4

The author's fixation on prairie tall grasses is something remarkable at this point. Especially since he continues to dictate again what prairie tall grasses should mean to nations where this biome doesn't even occur. Why would prairie tall grasses be more significant to a nation that exists primarily out of mangroves, than those mangroves that may have cultural importance to that nation? To draw on the real world, prairie tall grasses only occur in the United States and parts of Canada. I can assure you that to a country like the Netherlands prairie tall grasses have absolutely no economic or cultural value, and I think the same goes for the rest of the world, as prairie tall grasses do not occur beyond parts of the United States and Canada.

And just imagine if there was an individual resolution on every single biome in existence (such as taiga, tundra, boreal forest, deciduous forest, baobab forest, tropical rainforest, temperate rainforest, chaparral, tropical shrubland, Alpine grassland, etc.), not to mention the fact that players may create self-made environments and biomes, or use fantasy biomes. Are we also going to have a resolution that protects Mushroom forests? It's unworkable.

What the author proposes is a bloated bureaucratic monster of inefficiency. A single resolution that deals with all unique environments, fantasy or not, player-made or not, is the workable way forward, and along with several members of my own region Forest, we are brainstorming on a resolution that would indeed offer universal protections for all rare environments in existence.

As my counter-counter-argumentation has hopefully proven, Big Boyz refuses to move away from his misconceptions that have already been pointed out to him early in the drafting process of his resolution by many regulars of the WA sub-forums. That is his right of course, but it is also the right of the World Assembly to see reason, and act reasonably.

Therefore, I hope to be able to count on your support, most esteemed Delegate, and on your approval of "Repeal: “Protecting Native Prairies And Grasslands”".

Yours sincerely,
Daarwyrth