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: Local Options for Ecological Oversight
Details
Submitted by[?]: Tuesday Is Coming
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: July 2098
Description[?]:
| We propose an ecological compromise, that the national government devolves matters parks, hunting, and fishing to those closest to the issues involved. All national parks shall be turned over to the authorities of the state they exist in. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government regulation of hunting.
Old value:: Hunting and fishing activities are restricted to designated areas and periods.
Current: Hunting and fishing activities are restricted to designated areas and periods.
Proposed: The matters of hunting and fishing are handled by local governments.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government policy regarding a national park system.
Old value:: The government funds and maintains a network of national parks and/or marine protected areas.
Current: The government funds and maintains a network of national parks and/or marine protected areas.
Proposed: The government devolves park policy to local governments.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 06:07:29, August 18, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Local Options for Ecological Oversight |
| Message | March 2097 Is this acceptable to Green Action? |
| Date | 06:48:59, August 18, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Local Options for Ecological Oversight |
| Message | absolutely not. As always, we are opposed to environmental deregulation. As always, we believe that the environment is among the few areas of legitimate national responsibility, because ecological rptoection requires a nationwide strategy. May we add that during the last Citizens Assembly, it would have been easy to pass the most stringent possible environmental regulation. We did not do so, but instead offered compromise values. We shall not compromise any further on the environment, because the current laws are already a compromise. |
| Date | 07:24:59, August 18, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Local Options for Ecological Oversight |
| Message | What happened to localized control? Dont the local authorities have the best qualifications to handle these matters especially? |
| Date | 07:28:45, August 18, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Local Options for Ecological Oversight |
| Message | Apparently the Greens believe that the local authorities are fully qualified to handle every issue except those that actually make sense to devolve... |
| Date | 17:33:27, August 18, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Local Options for Ecological Oversight |
| Message | Green policy, and CCF policy before it, has been very clear on these issues for decades: the environment, defence and finance are the primary areas of national government responsibility. This was our policy before the TIC party was even formed, it was our policy when TIC was firerst created, and it has bene our policy every time TIC has proposed bills to gut environmental regulation. However, for the record we will repeat it once more: Environmental protection cannot be effectively carried out by local governments. We support devolution in other sectors, but not the environment. Indeed, this was explained privately to TIC parliamentarians immediately before they presented this bill: we are quite prepared to compromise on most issues, but in the words of the Green motto, there will be "no compromise in defence of mother earth." |
| Date | 18:48:49, August 18, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Local Options for Ecological Oversight |
| Message | "Green policy, and CCF policy before it, has been very clear on these issues for decades: the environment, defence and finance are the primary areas of national government responsibility. This was our policy before the TIC party was even formed, it was our policy when TIC was firerst created, and it has bene our policy every time TIC has proposed bills to gut environmental regulation. However, for the record we will repeat it once more: Environmental protection cannot be effectively carried out by local governments. We support devolution in other sectors, but not the environment. Indeed, this was explained privately to TIC parliamentarians immediately before they presented this bill: we are quite prepared to compromise on most issues, but in the words of the Green motto, there will be "no compromise in defence of mother earth."" Environmental policy regarding pollution and similar things can be reasonably presented as a national responsibility. However, the designation of public parks and the regulation of hunting and fishing are completely different matters. If Kregon wishes to designate a certain area as a park, but the national government feels that another area should be instead, why should we remove the decision from those who know the area best? |
| Date | 21:55:52, August 18, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Local Options for Ecological Oversight |
| Message | We support the position of TiC here. These matters are clearly those that the people closest to the land have the best chance of getting right. The delays and problems of handling local conservation issues at a national level are not justified. GA's position is not that of a true environmentalist. It is that of a power hungry bureaucrat that wants to define for the people on the ground, the people that can see what is happening, what they can and can not do about any environmental issues. |
| Date | 22:19:56, August 18, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Local Options for Ecological Oversight |
| Message | Yes, the ASP's Humpty Dumpty policy once again. "Environmentalist" can only mean what the ASP says it means. All words mean only what the ASP says. As a party of environmentalists, we shall reserve the right to decide for ourselves what we believe in. The law now allows the national government to designate parks. It does not prevent state governments from designating additonal parks. We would be very happy to support a consultative board that will allow the two levels of government to cooperate, but we see no reason to end the national parks system. Parks mayh need to cross state lines. The total amount fo green space throughout Lodamun needs to be maintained at minimum levels. The marine parks which cross international lines cannot be protected by state governments. |
| Date | 13:44:22, August 19, 2005 CET | From | Royal Conservative Party | To | Debating the Local Options for Ecological Oversight |
| Message | These matters can easily be handled by local government |
| Date | 21:27:54, August 19, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Local Options for Ecological Oversight |
| Message | The green advantadge can claim to be an environmentalist party all it wants, unless it backs this claim with some evidence of understanding the processes of belief formation and public attitudes then they are just whistling in the wind. To accuse us of using words in non conventional ways is rich. There is nbo disagreement between us as to what environmental means, there is only a disagreeement about how to obtain the desired results. Try reading the content of what we state GA. It might eventually get through to you that our intention is the same as yours, to protect the environment. |
| Date | 23:00:45, August 19, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Local Options for Ecological Oversight |
| Message | we believe your methods are destructive in the long run and in the short run, and the environmental need is great enough that strong action is needed. You disagree. Since we believe that the deregulation approach is likely to hurt the environment, we cannot give our consent. Both education and regualtory protections are needed. For that matter, we have seen no efforts to do any environmental education proposed by either wing of the Adam Smith is Coming alliance, we can only conclude that their commitment to the environment is either hollow, or a poor second to their commitment to a corporate agenda. Oh, for the days of the Amystian Council. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 295 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 155 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: There are two countries based on Egypt in the game. Cobura is based on modern Egypt with a retro twist, while Hawu Mumenhes is based on Ancient Egypt with a modernist twist. |
| Random quote: "The National Rifle Association says, 'Guns don't kill people; people kill people,' but I think the gun helps." - Eddie Izzard |