[DRAFT] Coastline Management Act

[Wallenburg]

"Preventing the natural processes of the planet on uninhabited stretches of coastline is an absurd waste of funds and resources, and is more likely to cause environmental harm than mitigate it."

[Cappedore]

Think of the bigger picture; if we were to just let the sea eat away even at uninhabited coastlines, think about how that could effect future generations. Applying a global defence strategy against coastal erosion is something we must do now to ensure the conservation of natural landmarks, natural habitats and the security of people who live nearby or who will live nearby in the years to come.

People also enjoy seeing the natural landmarks coastlines produce; think about what would happen if said landmarks were to be effected by coastal erosion. Future generations would miss out on areas of natural beauty and it can even have an effect on a nation's tourism industry.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Where do you think the coastlines or beaches came from if not from erosion?

[Wallenburg]

Where do you think the coastlines or beaches came from if not from erosion?

"Apparently, they were created by gods, but they are currently busy with a family emergency so they can't be expected to keep the world from falling apart. It falls on us mere mortals to make sure not a single grain of sand goes unreplaced. After all, a silty world is a safe world."

[Cappedore]

Where do you think the coastlines or beaches came from if not from erosion?

Some beaches are, in fact, man-made and are used as a coastal protection mechanism already, especially in countries that do not have naturally-formed beaches.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Where do you think the coastlines or beaches came from if not from erosion?

Some beaches are, in fact, man-made and are used as a coastal protection mechanism already, especially in countries that do not have naturally-formed beaches.

Where do you think landmark cliffs come from?

[Cappedore]

Some beaches are, in fact, man-made and are used as a coastal protection mechanism already, especially in countries that do not have naturally-formed beaches.

Where do you think landmark cliffs come from?

Those are naturally made; shouldn't we be trying to protect them? They're hotspots for local wildlife and habitats.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Cliffs are usually formed because of processes called erosion and weathering." Nat'l Geo, https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/cliff/. This maintain the status quo at all costs policy is both expensive and if implemented would prevent the formation of the things you want to preserve. It isn't logically consistent.

A more pragmatic way would be to preserve things where people live, provided that the costs of doing so are long-term net positive. But that does not seem to be the policy at hand.

[Wallenburg]

"This underlying assumption on the part of the authoring delegation that the natural environment of the future is somehow inherently inferior to the natural environment of the past is worthy of the utmost mockery."

[Cappedore]

"Cliffs are usually formed because of processes called erosion and weathering." Nat'l Geo, https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/cliff/. This maintain the status quo at all costs policy is both expensive and if implemented would prevent the formation of the things you want to preserve. It isn't logically consistent.

A more pragmatic way would be to preserve things where people live, provided that the costs of doing so are long-term net positive. But that does not seem to be the policy at hand.

The policy aims to implement defences to anywhere that is affected by the sea; and nearly everything is effected by the sea, either presently or it will be in the future. This proposal protects natural landmarks, landscapes, human settlements and natural habitats from detriment caused by the sea. If your idea that we should only protect the areas where people live, then we'd all be living on islands in hundreds of years' time because we didn't care to protect additional areas that urgently needed protecting.

[Bananaistan]

"Maybe people should just get out of the way of the sea and let it do its thing.

"Particularly problematic here is the never ending bureaucracy and secondary legislative powers granted to it. The general fund is not a bottomless and its precious and limited resources absolutely should not be wasted in an attempt to have the WA and member states act like King Cnut."

OOC: This would not be good policy IRL where we know there's huge problems on the way with rising sea levels. Humanity is literally going to have to abandon coastal areas left, right and centre when scarce resources will only stretch to "saving" the most populated areas in a handful of rich countries. In NS, I'm not sure rising sea levels are actually a problem as the GA has already taken significant actions to protect the environment.

[Wallenburg]

"Cliffs are usually formed because of processes called erosion and weathering." Nat'l Geo, https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/cliff/. This maintain the status quo at all costs policy is both expensive and if implemented would prevent the formation of the things you want to preserve. It isn't logically consistent.

A more pragmatic way would be to preserve things where people live, provided that the costs of doing so are long-term net positive. But that does not seem to be the policy at hand.

The policy aims to implement defences to anywhere that is affected by the sea; and nearly everything is effected by the sea, either presently or it will be in the future. This proposal protects natural landmarks, landscapes, human settlements and natural habitats from detriment caused by the sea.

"Yes, that is the problem. To preserve the entire coastline environment exactly as it is now is an impossible mandate."

If your idea that we should only protect the areas where people live, then we'd all be living on islands in hundreds of years' time because we didn't care to protect additional areas that urgently needed protecting.

"I am no expert on your native planet's environment, but where I come from the continents will not erode to nothing in the course of a few hundred years, nor will the seas cease to produce new lands."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Cliffs are usually formed because of processes called erosion and weathering." Nat'l Geo, https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/cliff/. This maintain the status quo at all costs policy is both expensive and if implemented would prevent the formation of the things you want to preserve. It isn't logically consistent.

A more pragmatic way would be to preserve things where people live, provided that the costs of doing so are long-term net positive. But that does not seem to be the policy at hand.

The policy aims to implement defences to anywhere that is affected by the sea; and nearly everything is effected by the sea, either presently or it will be in the future. This proposal protects natural landmarks, landscapes, human settlements and natural habitats from detriment caused by the sea. If your idea that we should only protect the areas where people live, then we'd all be living on islands in hundreds of years' time because we didn't care to protect additional areas that urgently needed protecting.

Elsie. If the world were to be reduced to islands by erosion it would have happened millions if not billions of years ago. That it contains large non-island features is indicative of more factors happening. This paean to naturalism cannot be seriously taken as the justification of a policy to put a final stop to natural geology.

[Araraukar]

OOC: By applying the "protections", you'd be killing the majority of coastal ecosystems. Unless that's your actual goal and this is an anti-environmental proposal merely disguised as an environmental one, you've gone even further off the deep end.

WHAT is the problem you're trying to fix? And don't say erosion because that's impossible.

[Cappedore]

OOC: By applying the "protections", you'd be killing the majority of coastal ecosystems. Unless that's your actual goal and this is an anti-environmental proposal merely disguised as an environmental one, you've gone even further off the deep end.

WHAT is the problem you're trying to fix? And don't say erosion because that's impossible.

The problem the proposal aims to fix is damage to coastlines, habitats, and ecosystems as a result of coastal erosion.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: By applying the "protections", you'd be killing the majority of coastal ecosystems. Unless that's your actual goal and this is an anti-environmental proposal merely disguised as an environmental one, you've gone even further off the deep end.

WHAT is the problem you're trying to fix? And don't say erosion because that's impossible.

The problem the proposal aims to fix is damage to coastlines, habitats, and ecosystems as a result of coastal erosion.

Dumping a bunch of sand everywhere does not solve that problem.

[Araraukar]

OOC: By applying the "protections", you'd be killing the majority of coastal ecosystems. Unless that's your actual goal and this is an anti-environmental proposal merely disguised as an environmental one, you've gone even further off the deep end.

WHAT is the problem you're trying to fix? And don't say erosion because that's impossible.

The problem the proposal aims to fix is damage to coastlines, habitats, and ecosystems as a result of coastal erosion.

OOC: What damage? Most coastlines are not being unnaturally eroded. Do you understand that "coastal erosion" is part of the reason why the rich and unique ecosystems exist on the coasts?

Without erosion, no minerals for plants and animals. Without erosion, no new places for life to settle, no beaches - silt and sand are produced by erosion - no bare rock (needed by corals and barnacles and many other animals), no seagrass meadows or algal forests (both of which support some of the most endangered marine mammal species in RL, not to mention countless fish and invertebrate ones).

Do you understand you would have to stop rain and tides and rivers and wind and sea currents to stop coastal erosion? Do you understand how mad that is?

And last of all, stopping erosion would kill the ecosystems you want to protect.

If your goal is to stop erosion, you're in the wrong category. It is NOT pro-environmental.

I keep telling you that you need to research things more. You clearly do not know what you're talking about.

[Cappedore]

The problem the proposal aims to fix is damage to coastlines, habitats, and ecosystems as a result of coastal erosion.

OOC: What damage? Most coastlines are not being unnaturally eroded. Do you understand that "coastal erosion" is part of the reason why the rich and unique ecosystems exist on the coasts?

Without erosion, no minerals for plants and animals. Without erosion, no new places for life to settle, no beaches - silt and sand are produced by erosion - no bare rock (needed by corals and barnacles and many other animals), no seagrass meadows or algal forests (both of which support some of the most endangered marine mammal species in RL, not to mention countless fish and invertebrate ones).

Do you understand you would have to stop rain and tides and rivers and wind and sea currents to stop coastal erosion? Do you understand how mad that is?

And last of all, stopping erosion would kill the ecosystems you want to protect.

If your goal is to stop erosion, you're in the wrong category. It is NOT pro-environmental.

I keep telling you that you need to research things more. You clearly do not know what you're talking about.

It's not just sea life; it's life that inhabits the land as well.

[Cappedore]

/bump-ing this for another time, see if I can get the ball rolling again. Please refer to 'Draft 3' for the most recent draft.

[Tinhampton]

Why is your latest draft in a spoiler rather than out in the open at the top of your OP?

I am extraordinarily iffy about how vague and... bullet-pointy Draft 3 seems to be. Regulation of what other bodies? Conserving nature in which areas? Draining surface water in a more sustainable fashion than what conventional techniques? What is sustainability? I could go on but I won't, for now.

[Cappedore]

Why is your latest draft in a spoiler rather than out in the open at the top of your OP?

I am extraordinarily iffy about how vague and... bullet-pointy Draft 3 seems to be. Regulation of what other bodies? Conserving nature in which areas? Draining surface water in a more sustainable fashion than what conventional techniques? What is sustainability? I could go on but I won't, for now.

Oh, nevermind, I don't think that's the most recent draft - apologies, that's a fault on my behalf.

Please read the draft at the top of the forum page.

[Bananaistan]

"We remain opposed. The one aspect of the justification laid out for this proposal which is feasible, IE the endangered species issue, is already covered by existing international legislation in GAR#465 which directs such efforts only to locations where they are necessary.

"The substance of this proposal remains the same as in the previous drafts presented for our consideration. Member states are still forced to undertakes works on all beaches and coastlines regardless of the necessity or feasibility of same. No doubt at huge costs too.

"Member states are best placed to decide, within the requirements of the existing legislation already referred to, which parts of their coastlines require protection from erosion and where it's best to let nature run its course."

[Saksoni]

I will support it because, as you said, beaches are important for tourism and i also have many coastal areas and cities that need protection. I got the banner " Great works" like 3x culture ago.

[The Orwell Society]

Excellent draft. Full support!

[Cappedore]

"We remain opposed. The one aspect of the justification laid out for this proposal which is feasible, IE the endangered species issue, is already covered by existing international legislation in GAR#465 which directs such efforts only to locations where they are necessary.

"The substance of this proposal remains the same as in the previous drafts presented for our consideration. Member states are still forced to undertakes works on all beaches and coastlines regardless of the necessity or feasibility of same. No doubt at huge costs too.

"Member states are best placed to decide, within the requirements of the existing legislation already referred to, which parts of their coastlines require protection from erosion and where it's best to let nature run its course."

This proposal builds on this by concentrating not just on coastal and local wildlife, but also on coastal human settlements, manmade and natural landmarks, and preservation of overall areas of natural beauty.