Advertisement
by Wallenburg » Mon Aug 23, 2021 11:33 am
by Cappedore » Thu Aug 26, 2021 3:20 am
President Austin Merrill | Vice President Cleveland Durand | Chancellor Maya Murray
by Imperium Anglorum » Thu Aug 26, 2021 8:21 am
by Wallenburg » Thu Aug 26, 2021 9:02 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Where do you think the coastlines or beaches came from if not from erosion?
by Cappedore » Thu Aug 26, 2021 10:53 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Where do you think the coastlines or beaches came from if not from erosion?
President Austin Merrill | Vice President Cleveland Durand | Chancellor Maya Murray
by Imperium Anglorum » Thu Aug 26, 2021 10:58 am
by Cappedore » Thu Aug 26, 2021 11:51 am
President Austin Merrill | Vice President Cleveland Durand | Chancellor Maya Murray
by Imperium Anglorum » Thu Aug 26, 2021 12:27 pm
by Wallenburg » Thu Aug 26, 2021 1:04 pm
by Cappedore » Thu Aug 26, 2021 1:49 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:"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.
President Austin Merrill | Vice President Cleveland Durand | Chancellor Maya Murray
by Bananaistan » Thu Aug 26, 2021 2:24 pm
by Wallenburg » Thu Aug 26, 2021 2:37 pm
Cappedore wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:"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.
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Aug 27, 2021 10:33 am
Cappedore wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:"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.
by Araraukar » Mon Aug 30, 2021 6:26 am
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Cappedore » Tue Aug 31, 2021 6:58 am
Araraukar wrote: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.
President Austin Merrill | Vice President Cleveland Durand | Chancellor Maya Murray
by Wallenburg » Tue Aug 31, 2021 7:44 am
Cappedore wrote:Araraukar wrote: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.
by Araraukar » Wed Sep 01, 2021 9:25 am
Cappedore wrote:Araraukar wrote: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.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Cappedore » Sat Sep 04, 2021 12:20 pm
Araraukar wrote:Cappedore wrote: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.
President Austin Merrill | Vice President Cleveland Durand | Chancellor Maya Murray
by Cappedore » Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:02 am
President Austin Merrill | Vice President Cleveland Durand | Chancellor Maya Murray
by Tinhampton » Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:06 am
by Cappedore » Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:16 am
Tinhampton wrote: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.
President Austin Merrill | Vice President Cleveland Durand | Chancellor Maya Murray
by Bananaistan » Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:16 pm
by Saksoni » Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:21 pm
by The Orwell Society » Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:42 pm
The Orwell Society
Straight Male | Political Alignment: Centrist leaning conservative | NSGP Alignment: Independent | Proud Wellspringer, join The Wellspring today!A vision without action is just a daydream
by Cappedore » Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:52 pm
Bananaistan wrote:"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."
President Austin Merrill | Vice President Cleveland Durand | Chancellor Maya Murray
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Fachumonn, The Ice States
Advertisement