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: Ecology Bill 2496
Details
Submitted by[?]: Meritocratic Alliance
Status[?]: defeated
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: May 2497
Description[?]:
| Improvements to our environmental status |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding the keeping of endangered animals.
Old value:: Only zoos or zoological institutions are allowed to keep endangered animals; all other forms of keeping or trading in endangered animals are forbidden.
Current: Only zoos or zoological institutions are allowed to keep endangered animals; all other forms of keeping or trading in endangered animals are forbidden.
Proposed: Keeping endangered animals, or trading therein, is forbidden.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Regulation of the quality of drinking water.
Old value:: The government sets a single standard to ensure all tap water is drinkable.
Current: The government sets a single standard to ensure all tap water is drinkable.
Proposed: The government sets a range of standards dependant on water usage. (grey water regulation, etc.)
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 08:12:50, December 05, 2007 CET | From |  New Centre and Unionists | To | Debating the Ecology Bill 2496 |
| Message | The Union for Progression and Development clearly sets out regulations to have people's rights INCREASED not decreased. We cannot support a bill that will prevent the Solentian citizen being granted the right to have any animal they wish in their home. - UPD Shadow Environment and Tourism Secretary: Connie Mealing (Chair of the Executive Agenda) |
| Date | 20:24:36, December 05, 2007 CET | From | Meritocratic Alliance | To | Debating the Ecology Bill 2496 |
| Message | Let me then, in belalf of my partisans, attempt to explain the reasoning behind these moves. We are a world leader in the protection of animals, and we believe Article 1 only increases our protection of wildlife. When it's gone, it's gone forever, so we must do what we can do stop the loss of our zoological diversity. Article 2 is basically doing just as you describe. Gray water and other nonpotable water should not be forced to used the same standards as tap water. It's more expensive and frankly silly. It also overtaxes our water treatments plants and thus in fact DECREASES the quality of drinking water. From my point of view, Article 2 is easily understood in such a context. Thank you. Maurice Chavez, Minister for Food and Agriculture. I would like to add to Mr Chavez's statements to include that setting a range of standards for water based on purposes would allow private developments of desalinization equipment to move forward more quickly. I have spoken to several research firms and they have stated unanimously that fresh water from desalination could be used not only for drinking water but for industrial purposes near the Fuwanese coast where there are some dry areas with depressed economies. That is something that I hope the Senate will take into context. Prof. Abram Grimes, Minister for Science and Technology |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 136 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 226 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 63 |
| Random fact: Your user name is not your party name. Choose a concise and easy to remember user name. You can change your party name at any point in time later in the game. |
| Random quote: "Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity." - Albert Einstein |