[Malabra]

Help Prevent Ozone Depletion

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: The Black Market HQ

Description:
For too long humans have been emitting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) which effect the ozone that protects us. Most of CFCs come from the industry. If CFCs continue to be emitted we will not have enough ozone to protect us.

Ozone protects us, it prevents the majority of UV(Ultra-Violet) rays from reaching our surface. Too many UV rays and you get skin cancer.

The Ozone is depleted so much over the south pole and the north pole that almost 100% of UV rays reach the surface.

If we don't stop emitting CFCs the 'hole'(area of significantly depleted ozone) will continue to grow until it covers the entire earth.


Therefore all businesses must reduce emitions of CFCs by 50% within five years and 90% within thirty years. It is still possible for businesses to work effectively even though they have to reduce the amount of gas they release.

If there is a reduction in CFCs, the ozone will stop depleting, there will be a significant reduction in skin cancer and therefore a reduction in medical costs. It will also help endangered animals as animals suffer from the same problem.

Basically by reducing CFC emitions we make the world a better place.

Voting Ends: Fri Aug 25 2006

[Enn]

Bad science, too simplified to actually do anything. Nay.

[Antrium]

I also don't like the way it's written, and the way they spell emissions

I like the idea, but I agree with Enn.

[Mikitivity]

I'm tending to agree. Nice idea, but the resolution just isn't moving me. If there was a strong proponent to come by and argue in favour, then I'm tempted to vote yes ... but if not, no.

[Gnejs]

FOR. it's not great but good enough.

[Eisophca]

AGAINST. Bad science, horrible resolution, needs to be defeated.

[Keeslandia]

Aye. Support on principle, not crafting. The Empire will vote aye to put the UN on the books concerning this issue and would support a repeal/modification with a more practical replacement.

[Mikitivity]

Mikitivity is still undecided. We're much more concerned with climate change issues, which this is not (directly). It is about greenhouse gases. Hmmm ...

[Federation of Disjunction]

I'm with Gnejs and Kees on this one. The wording wasn't terribly eloquent and it should have more specifics, but the importance of taking a stand on such a high impact issue is what I believe to be important in this case. Could I convince some of the nays to discuss further?

[Mikitivity]

I'm leaning nay, but perhaps if you can explain some ways that perhaps our nations could work together in the (likely) event that this passes, I can be convinced to vote to abstain or vote in favour.

[Federation of Disjunction]

There is an aspect of working together here but the heart of this poorly written but important resolution is the aspect of having companies that currently do nothing about their CFC's actually have accountability for reducing/eliminating them.

Disjunction pldges to form a UN accountability team, which will be open to participation from all countries, who will be a watchdog for companies and countries who are not in compliance. The enforcement will ultimately fall on the UN and the international community but I feel that the existance of this team (depending on participation level) will help put some teeth into this resolution.

Does this help the situation for you Miki?

[Mikitivity]

A bit. Perhaps we could also endeavour for IDU leaders to meet to discuss shared research into a viable alternative to whatever CFCs are most targetted for elimination with the goal that this technology be shared.

[Eisophca]

Federation of DisjunctionAug 23 2006, 11:10 AM I'm with Gnejs and Kees on this one. The wording wasn't terribly eloquent and it should have more specifics, but the importance of taking a stand on such a high impact issue is what I believe to be important in this case. Could I convince some of the nays to discuss further? [/quote]
Well, first off, there's the official topic, where the first post has an argument against it.

And second, I think the percentages are completely arbitrary and don't address the whole problem...and it actually gives the responsibility for reducing everyone's ozone emissions to businesses (read the proposal: it says that businesses are responsible for reducing CFC emissions, not their CFC emissions.

Plus, if we keep passing horrible legislation like this, more will come, as those who don't bother drafting will be heartened...

[Enn]

If I have to keep pointing out that CFCs do in fact cause damage to the ozone layer, I may have to vote for this thing, or at least abstain. I don't want to get too associated with the kind of drongos I've been arguing against. Including the one who thinks cows fart CFCs.

[Eisophca]

EnnAug 23 2006, 04:16 PM If I have to keep pointing out that CFCs do in fact cause damage to the ozone layer, I may have to vote for this thing, or at least abstain. I don't want to get too associated with the kind of drongos I've been arguing against. Including the one who thinks cows fart CFCs. [/quote]
Aargh. I just looked at the topic, and I see what you mean...

[Federation of Disjunction]

OK, Golgothastan makes some good points and I wish he could have consulted when this resolution was in its infancy because it has loopholes. Many other nations on the UN forum agree.

Ceo, you're right too in that the percentages are arbitrary, but my response to that is in this case, + or - a couple of percent is not as important as accomplishing progress. Also, businesses either individually or through the manufacture of consumer product are chiefly responsible for CFC use so that would seem to be effective.

I wish the nation proposing this resolution had visited our forum first because we (or many other nations/regions) could have helped make this one stronger. My solution and proposal to you all is this: Vote for this one, and then WE can conceptualize a follow up resolution that closes the loopholes and together can make them stronger.

Maybe this is an opportunity to do some of the resolution building that I've discussed in the Green Union thread by involving other regions. It IS an environmental resolution. Thoughts?

One last thing, I can't be the first person to raise this question, but has anyone at NS ever given thought to superceding resolutions? That way, a resolution wouldn't have to be repealed but merely replaced with a stornger/better one.

[Federation of Disjunction]

Well, I just checked the voting and it looks like it is a moot point for us anyway since there are many more votes in favor. Could we connect with some of the nations on the UN forum to discuss a follow up resoution?

[Bears Armed]

Federation of DisjunctionAug 24 2006, 02:59 PM Well, I just checked the voting and it looks like it is a moot point for us anyway since there are many more votes in favor. Could we connect with some of the nations on the UN forum to discuss a follow up resoution? [/quote]
A "follow-up" resolution could run into problems with the "no amendments" & "house of cards" rules: I'd suggest going for repeal & replace instead, although I admit that getting that past the twits who only look at resolutions' titles might be rather difficult.
For anybody here who doesn't already know, I'm active in the UN forum as -- mainly -- 'St Edmundan Antarctic' which is my current UN member-nation: I've been arguing against this proposal there, because it's so badly written and also because of its potential for blocking better ones on the subject, but I've also been arguing against some of the 'Ozone Layer problem? There's no Ozone Layer problem!' faction... Ironically, this is a subject that I started drafting a proposal about myself (drawing quite closely on the RL 'Montreal Protocol') a few months ago, but I set that project aside when I hit a block -- partly due to the length limits -- and then got distracted by other topics...

[Federation of Disjunction]

On the poorly written aspect, it is definately that. I'm sorry it would have to be repealed in order to be improved as I see that as a flaw. To me that is like repealing the US Constitution instead of ammending it.

As far as some people's belief that there is nothing wrong with the ozone, i can't even begin to discuss how incorrect that is so I appreciate your position, Bears.

We're ready to begin to watch for companies who will be in leagal compliance with this resolution but who deviate from ethical compliance by working the loopholes.

We are lucky in Disjunction as there is very little that big business can legally do to hurt the environment so this resolution won't affect us much. We could, however offer a panel of business leaders who have succeeded in building envirnmentally friendly businesses while maintaining a profit. On an unrelated note, these companies are at least partially successful because they acquire and maintain a highly committed and productive workforce through excellent work environment and reasonable compensation.

[Malabra]

The region's vote will be cast FOR this resolution.