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: Pollution Guidelines
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative Party of Telamon
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: April 2044
Description[?]:
| As of now, there is no punishment to those that damage the enviroment. I propose, that we punish those, that pollutely heavily and make no effort otherwise, to create less pollution. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government regulation of pollution in industry.
Old value:: The government provides pollution prevention guidelines, but does not enforce them.
Current: The government enforces highly restrictive industrial pollution standards.
Proposed: The government enforces moderate pollution restrictions.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:09:22, April 28, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Party of Telamon | To | Debating the Pollution Guidelines |
| Message | If only to protect our enviroment. |
| Date | 01:09:58, April 28, 2005 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Pollution Guidelines |
| Message | No, we believe that the current system in which the government provides guidelines which industry is expected (but not forced) to adhere to is best. |
| Date | 01:10:27, April 28, 2005 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Pollution Guidelines |
| Message | Therefore as I say there are already pollution controls in place |
| Date | 01:16:19, April 28, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Party of Telamon | To | Debating the Pollution Guidelines |
| Message | If it is not forced, what is there to stop them, if they dump poisons into lakes? Or spread hundreds of thousands of tons of waste, that could have otherwise been avoided simply because of their laziness. |
| Date | 01:23:39, April 28, 2005 CET | From | To | Debating the Pollution Guidelines |
| Message | I fully agree that with only guidelines the polluters are left to run amok with our air, water and land. We are not talking about the government looking over every single transaction of industry, but only enforcing moderate, sensible regulations. |
| Date | 06:56:39, April 28, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party of Telamon | To | Debating the Pollution Guidelines |
| Message | i am going to wait so i can see who the libertarians vote for, then ill vote for against him |
| Date | 07:02:12, April 28, 2005 CET | From | To | Debating the Pollution Guidelines |
| Message | Conservatives: Poisoning somebody's lake or spreading waste on their ground is definately a tort. That is every bit as effective enforcement in cases of "simple laziness" as any "moderate restrictions". The times this law will make a difference is when your restrictions fail to be moderate. |
| Date | 07:03:35, April 28, 2005 CET | From | To | Debating the Pollution Guidelines |
| Message | TCP, OOC: That leaves you open to deceit. I log on more often than you, so I could easily vote no now and then change my vote after you cast yours. |
| Date | 21:28:39, April 28, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Party of Telamon | To | Debating the Pollution Guidelines |
| Message | That is like like creating a law saying murder is illegal, and then expect without police for everybody to obey. I can tell you this much...if i could get away with murder i would. The fact you vote againt this, makes you put this country in great economical danger. |
| Date | 01:55:41, April 29, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Party of Telamon | To | Debating the Pollution Guidelines |
| Message | Enviromental^ |
| Date | 11:23:23, April 29, 2005 CET | From | To | Debating the Pollution Guidelines |
| Message | Cons: Let's accept your flawed analogy for a moment. If there was no real punishment for murder, most people would still not do it. Because they think murdering is wrong and thus avoid it. The same thing would apply if there were no consequences to ignoring what you did to the environment. Now for why your analogy is flawed: If a firm violates our policy we tell that to their costumers (there is a badge that they are only allowed to use if they follow it). Then their costumers make the decision wether or not to remain costumers. Since many people care about the environment it is advantageous for the companies to care. So it is not without consequence to violate our environmental policy, it is just that we leave it up to the owners and costumers to decide what is important to them, instead of us dictating it. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes | Total Seats: 21 | ||
| no | Total Seats: 32 | ||
| abstain | Total Seats: 30 |
| Random fact: "Game mechanics comes first." For example, if a currently-enforced bill sets out one law, then a player cannot claim the government has set out a contradictory law. |
| Random quote: "What are you trying to protect heterosexual marriages from? There isn't a limited amount of love in Iowa. It isn't a non-renewable resource. If Amy and Barbara or Mike and Steve love each other, it doesn't mean that John and Mary can't." - Ed Fallon |