Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: January 5461
Next month in: 00:40:37
Server time: 19:19:22, March 28, 2024 CET
Currently online (7): ADM Drax | Drax | jamescfm-kaf | lulus | Moderation | reformist2024 | starfruit | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date00:19:51, August 12, 2005 CET
FromPartiya Nacionalnogo Progressa
ToDebating the Habitat Protection
MessageThrow money to nature? Hmmm...

Date04:59:10, August 12, 2005 CET
FromProgressive Marxist Party
ToDebating the Habitat Protection
MessageYes, 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.

Date06:32:37, August 12, 2005 CET
From Federation Under Crazy Killers -- United
ToDebating the Habitat Protection
MessageProfit? really? Hmmmm......

Date06:35:21, August 12, 2005 CET
FromRationalist Party
ToDebating the Habitat Protection
MessageSpinoff jobs mostly

Date07:10:14, August 12, 2005 CET
FromProgressive Marxist Party
ToDebating the Habitat Protection
MessageEcotourism 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

Date07:10:27, August 12, 2005 CET
FromProgressive Marxist Party
ToDebating the Habitat Protection
Message*parks*

Date11:03:36, August 15, 2005 CET
FromUnited Liberal Alliance
ToDebating the Habitat Protection
MessagePMP 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

Date21:33:48, August 15, 2005 CET
FromProgressive Marxist Party
ToDebating the Habitat Protection
MessageNo, 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.

Date13:45:59, August 16, 2005 CET
FromUnited Liberal Alliance
ToDebating the Habitat Protection
MessageThose 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.

Date04:48:43, August 18, 2005 CET
FromRationalist Party
ToDebating the Habitat Protection
MessageI'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

    This page was generated with PHP
    Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
    Queries performed: 71