AT VOTE: Repeal "Replanting Trees"
#1

Quote: 
Repeal "Replanting Trees"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #23
Proposed by: Adolf Barham

Description: UN Resolution #23: Replanting Trees (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The United Nations,

UNDERSTANDING the good environmental intentions of resolution #23, "Replanting Trees,"

EMPHASISING that this repeal is not an attempt to make it easier for companies to deforest trees wantonly,

NOTING that trees are measured by a numbered count and not in acres making the proposal very vague and ineffectual,

FURTHERMORE NOTING that it only states that the responsibility of replanting the trees is held by the person or the enterprise who cut them down and makes no obligation for the individual or the enterprise to ensure that the replanted trees are able to grow and that there is no power to enforce that the trees are able to grow,

CONSIDERING that there may not be ample land to replant the required amount of trees available,

ALSO CONSIDERING that no reason is given as to why the trees should be replanted and that all this resolution achieves is wasting the money of each nation,

NOTING that the resolution makes no allowances for any trees cut prior to the resolution passing,

CONSIDERING that, under this resolution, it is possible to cut down small batches of trees numbering below five acres and not replant, thereby rendering the resolution virtually useless,

STATING that the resolution makes no allowances for different varieties or types of trees grown, thus allowing companies to destroy biodiversity,

NOTING that no allowances are given for the deforested area to recoup in certain nutrients after the deforestation,

DEEMING Resolution #23 to be an ineffectual and inconsiderate resolution which fails to accomplish its goals,

REPEALS Resolution #23: Replanting Trees.

Co-Authored by: Jey[/quote]

Vote will be cast on Wed/Thur.
Reply
#2

NO. Where's the kernel of a better resolution? Many resolutions, especially early ones, are sketchy at best; however, I'd much rather wait for a good replacement than have a basically worthy but somewhat wobbly resolution bite the dust.
Reply
#3

This is an idiotic resolution. The paper it was printed on is just about its only environmental impact. I say burn it.
Reply
#4

No, no and then NO!
Reply
#5

even though we by mistake clicked the "SURE" option (lack of food or sleep, you pick) Gnejs says NO to the current resolution.
Reply
#6

AGAINST.

Environment=good. Enough said.
Reply
#7

I'll be voting no in just a moment.
Reply
#8

Trees are nice.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)