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: UM - Ecology Reform
Details
Submitted by[?]: United Malivia
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: January 2447
Description[?]:
| "This bill is deisgned to reform our urrent ecology related laws as to see a better Malivia, without having too restrictive or too leniant laws." |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Forest management.
Old value:: Local governments may set up forestry agencies. Where they do not, forestry is on a commercial basis.
Current: Local governments are required to operate forestry agencies, which own and manage all forest land.
Proposed: There is a national agency which exists side-by-side with commercial forestry companies.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government regulation of pollution in industry.
Old value:: The government enforces highly restrictive industrial pollution standards.
Current: The government enforces moderate pollution restrictions.
Proposed: The government enforces moderate pollution restrictions.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning private cars.
Old value:: Private cars are allowed, but people are encouraged to travel collective and tax incentives are provided for cars using environmentally friendly fuels.
Current: Private cars are allowed, but people are encouraged to travel collective and tax incentives are provided for cars using environmentally friendly fuels.
Proposed: Only one car allowed per household, people are encouraged to travel collective and tax incentives on cars using environmentally friendly fuels.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Government-sponsored recycling programs.
Old value:: The government funds recycling facilities but enforces mandatory recycling for industry only.
Current: Local governments decide about this.
Proposed: The government funds recycling facilities and enforces mandatory recycling for residents, commercial enterprise, and industry.
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy on tree plantation.
Old value:: The government requires tree plantation at replacement level for all logging or clearance operations.
Current: The government requires tree plantation at replacement level for all logging or clearance operations.
Proposed: The government requires tree plantation at higher than replacement levels for all logging or clearance operations.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 23:05:22, August 21, 2007 CET | From | Militarist Party | To | Debating the UM - Ecology Reform |
| Message | The Militarist Parrty believes that Articles II and III are fine how they are. |
| Date | 02:28:31, August 22, 2007 CET | From | National Anti-Communist Front | To | Debating the UM - Ecology Reform |
| Message | While the MNP supports articles one and two, we can't support article three. Having only one car is unreasonable for families. |
| Date | 17:34:33, August 22, 2007 CET | From | Malivian National Unity Front | To | Debating the UM - Ecology Reform |
| Message | The Malivian National Unity Front respects our colleagues platforms on these issues however, the M.N.U.F. finds itself only in favor of Article 1 and 5. Article 2: The government should regulate pollution from certain industries, without question. However, to mandate requirements goes against the Republic in which we represent. Provide private industries with incentives to reduce emissions. Provide federal assistance to build and fund cleaner production technologies. To mandate a reduction would stifle many industries and ultimately hurt the Malivian economy. Article 3: I'm tempted to ask my respected colleagues of the United Malivians if they believe in the right to personal property based off this absurd proposal. One car allowed per household? For what, cut down on Co2 emissions? Give me a break. It is an individuals right in their pursuit of liberty to spend their money as deemed fit. If you happen to be a bleeding-heart environmentalist let us take a page from other nations. Provide tax credits to those who purchase green-friendly vehicles. Let us provide incentives to the automobile industry to focus more heavily on clean-burning renewable energies. Article 4: I'd again like to ask from across the aisle if those who support this measure believe in liberty. It is not and never will be the governments job to MANDATE citizens to recycle. If you want to push this agenda, again green-incentives via tax credits or write-offs. Respectfully, Minister Alastair Caprivian, D.I.M. |
| Date | 17:55:57, August 22, 2007 CET | From | St. George's Xtreme Coalition Party | To | Debating the UM - Ecology Reform |
| Message | We're torn; we're pro-environment but anti-big government. As it is, we're not really fans of articles 2, 3, and 4. |
| Date | 01:37:12, August 23, 2007 CET | From | Supporters of Science in Design (IP) | To | Debating the UM - Ecology Reform |
| Message | We support all but one. |
| Date | 02:37:26, August 23, 2007 CET | From |  Protectorate Party | To | Debating the UM - Ecology Reform |
| Message | We will support this bill however would prefer to have article two removed. To our colleague of the MNUF, we believe that they natural resources of Malivia belong to its citizens as a whole, and as such it is our job to regulate their use. Individual transportation vehicles are a waste of these resources since they are inefficient by their very nature. |
| Date | 21:06:26, August 24, 2007 CET | From | Malivian National Unity Front | To | Debating the UM - Ecology Reform |
| Message | Respectfully to our colleagues of the Protectorate Party: It is the understanding and also accepted stance of the M.N.U.F. that vehicles are inefficient by their very nature. However, you can't simply stifle the rights of our citizens due to our view of inefficiency. If I felt that your drive to the capitol was inefficient; I doubt you'd like a mandate requiring you go another way. Further to the point is the reality of the world in which we live. As is, the primary source for transportation within Malivia is personal vehicles and this keeps our automobile industry booming and Malivians in jobs. You get this bill passed and you've not only "protected" our "citizens" from the "scourge" of cars but, you've chased out an entire industry; bad idea. Versus a focus on the ineffectiveness of our current technologies perhaps your party ought focus on providing incentives to the private industries to work on greener technologies to combat this versus jumping the gun without a viable alternative to the disastrous problems that a 1 vehicle per family policy would herald? Respectfully, Minister Alastair Caprivian, D.I.M. |
| Date | 23:25:26, August 24, 2007 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the UM - Ecology Reform |
| Message | Apparently our colleague has forgotten their history. For long periods of time personal cars have been banned in Malivia. Our population and infrastructure adapted very well and we where a model of efficiency throughout Terra. We have provided an alternative in the Arcologies found in our cities. http://particracy.wikia.com/wiki/Malivia It is not a question of just the technology of the vehicle, but also of the infrastructure needed to support it, the roads, parking lots, materials to build. Not to mention the policing effort needed on the roads, likelihood of accidents and traffic jams. Personal cars are a thing of the past and should be discouraged if not outright banned for Malivia. |
| Date | 00:27:48, August 25, 2007 CET | From | Malivian National Unity Front | To | Debating the UM - Ecology Reform |
| Message | Respectfully, It is fully acknowledged that we as a party have existed a short time here in Malivia and it shouldn't be a surprise to any, including Malivians that the new generation of parties aren't going to contain the wisdom and often views embedded with a dangerous ideology. The movement to Arcologies as a context to fight numerable existential components is one that comes from a purely environmentalist point of perspective and science. I'm not going to attempt to take the sail from your steam if you've a green-thumb. You've seen on public-record the Malivian National Unity Front's stance on ecologically friendly technologies and incentives through private enterprise. In the context of the new generation of parties, the M.N.U.F. included therein, are clearly not as wise to the nuisances of the Malivian culture and history. I freely admit this. It is through time and experience and professional and courteous discourse that we learn. I appreciate your attempt to educate me, I do. I don't appreciate the superiority complex you exude. To that end, it might have been a worthy mention that the legislative history of this nation has been, at best, turbulent on this very subject. Through research one can easily find the origins and original intents of this idea and our respected colleagues the Protectorate Parties involvement therein. If it is the opinion of the Protectorate Party that it should view this Republic's role to dictate ideological agendas and policies that are formulated for "the better of people" by a select few; I'm clearly out of my league with your views. The core of my argument, history aside, is it is not and never will be the view of the M.N.U.F. that this Republic or any free society tell it's citizenry what it can and cannot do at the risk of direct physical harm to another. Respectfully, M.N.U.F. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 218 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 134 | |||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 248 |
| Random fact: Periodically, it is a good idea to go through your nation's Treaties and arrange to withdraw from any that are unwanted. |
| Random quote: "The Revolution needs to progress. We as humans need to evolve into higher beings through better moral virtues. And we can achieve that if we clean ourselves from the immoral. Those who go against the Revolution, go against human progress and must be freed in the most humane way possible. That is why we introduced the guillotine." - Maximus Robertson, former Davostani revolutionary |