We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Habitat Protection
Details
Submitted by[?]: Rationalist Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: November 2097
Description[?]:
In order to curb illegal hunting, forestry, and dumping, we feel we must allocate some funds toward the preservation of our national parks |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy regarding a national park system.
Old value:: The government designates ecological preservation zones but does not fund their oversight.
Current: The government funds and maintains a network of national parks and/or marine protected areas.
Proposed: The government funds and maintains a network of national parks and/or marine protected areas.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 00:19:51, August 12, 2005 CET | From | Partiya Nacionalnogo Progressa | To | Debating the Habitat Protection |
Message | Throw money to nature? Hmmm... |
Date | 04:59:10, August 12, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Marxist Party | To | Debating the Habitat Protection |
Message | Yes, i will support this. There is no reason not to support our environmental and cultural heritage. i assume historical areas would be protected too? Many national parks are centered around some place of historical importance. To anyone who opposes this for budget reasons, most parks gain a PROFIT as local families and even foreign tourists come to see the wildlife, scenery or landmark. |
Date | 06:32:37, August 12, 2005 CET | From | Federation Under Crazy Killers -- United | To | Debating the Habitat Protection |
Message | Profit? really? Hmmmm...... |
Date | 06:35:21, August 12, 2005 CET | From | Rationalist Party | To | Debating the Habitat Protection |
Message | Spinoff jobs mostly |
Date | 07:10:14, August 12, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Marxist Party | To | Debating the Habitat Protection |
Message | Ecotourism is what it is called. I am really only basing that on the major ones around here. The once poor towns now hold festivals outside the park to bring people into the park after the festivities. There is a small unintrusive hotel and cabins available for rent, which garners a profit. They charge for campgrounds and charge by the car to enter. Their actual budget is fairly low and is confined to upkeep, occasional environmental intervention (depends on the rate of destruction already present) and fire prevention. The private sector can profit greatly if we have something like Niagara or the Grand Canyon or even something minor like an old-growth forest. Plus the profit from the more amazing ones can help to fund the minor, less interesting pa |
Date | 07:10:27, August 12, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Marxist Party | To | Debating the Habitat Protection |
Message | *parks* |
Date | 11:03:36, August 15, 2005 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Habitat Protection |
Message | PMP you do not appear to understand the current situation. The Ecological Preservation Zones which we have basically are national parks - the do not recieve government money but are funded through tourism, ecotourism etc. You are right that they do make a profit and therefore have no need of government funding or government interference in what are locally managed projects |
Date | 21:33:48, August 15, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Marxist Party | To | Debating the Habitat Protection |
Message | No, they are funded by the private sector so the less interesting tourist ones are glossed over. This can help to fund those which may have scientific merit with little or no tourism value. Also, what is to say that these companies will do what is good for the environment? Perhaps the lake may be more aesthetically pleasing if they clean it slightly, removing some algae, causing many fish to starve. The private sector should stay out of the Preservation zones and invest in the outlying areas instead. |
Date | 13:45:59, August 16, 2005 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Habitat Protection |
Message | Those running these Zones do have to protect the environment as they are obliged to do so under law which designates them as Ecological Preservation Zones. Those with scientific merit can be funded by scientific organisations. |
Date | 04:48:43, August 18, 2005 CET | From | Rationalist Party | To | Debating the Habitat Protection |
Message | I'm not sure UCA, but are you saying they are already enforced? If so, with what money, they aren't funded |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | ||||||
yes |
Total Seats: 152 | ||||||
no | Total Seats: 103 | ||||||
abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
Random fact: References to prominent real-life persons are not allowed. This includes references to philosophies featuring the name of a real-life person (eg. "Marxism", "Thatcherism", "Keynesianism"). |
Random quote: "The main problem of the left is that it has been traditionally divided and unable to reach agreements between different leftist views, whilst the right has almost always moved in the same direction by giving concessions to different rightist points of view." - Aelius Celer, former Selucian politician |