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: Eco-Revolution Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Aldegar National Monarchic Front
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 3039
Description[?]:
| Big Brother's National Alliance ask other parties to help Aldegar having a greener and ecosustainable future. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Forest management.
Old value:: There is a national agency which owns all forests, but subcontracts the work to private companies.
Current: There is a national agency which owns and manages all forest land.
Proposed: There is a national agency which owns and manages all forest land.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government regulation of pollution in industry.
Old value:: The government enforces moderate pollution restrictions.
Current: The government enforces highly restrictive industrial pollution standards.
Proposed: The government enforces highly restrictive industrial pollution standards.
Article 3
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 | 13:31:59, December 01, 2010 CET | From | Aldegar National Monarchic Front | To | Debating the Eco-Revolution Bill |
| Message | For a more sustainable future: Article 1: a single standard is insufficient to ensure safety on waters. It's better to introduce multiple standards depending on the specific usage. This measure may also contribute to control water pollution level. Article 2: The national agency should also manage national forests. In this way it should guarantee a more strict control over national reserves that is not always assured with an intervention by private .organizations. Article3: Enforcing higlhly restrictive industrial pollution standards is necessary if we want make possible the greeen revolution in order to protect our planet. Probably in the immediate future some industries will encouter some economic difficulties, but on the long time the investment for the future is bigger and more important. |
| Date | 13:55:49, December 01, 2010 CET | From | rEvolution | To | Debating the Eco-Revolution Bill |
| Message | Yes! |
| Date | 16:28:10, December 01, 2010 CET | From | Aldegar National Monarchic Front | To | Debating the Eco-Revolution Bill |
| Message | Members of People's Party and GAMC could you please explain to our citizens why you decide to stop this reform? |
| Date | 16:55:09, December 01, 2010 CET | From | People's Party - Republican Democrats | To | Debating the Eco-Revolution Bill |
| Message | 1. We don't quite see how setting a range of standards is going to ensure that drinking water is safer than it is now. 2. We have always been opposed to a state economy and prefer private firms doing the actual work with close oversight by the state. 3. Our main problem with that propsal is that it says HIGHLY restrictive, we would prefer something between the current moderate regulation and the highly restrictive standards set out in this proposal (OOC: unfortunately, the game doesn't give us that option) |
| Date | 19:26:15, December 01, 2010 CET | From | Aldegar National Monarchic Front | To | Debating the Eco-Revolution Bill |
| Message | 1. Setting different standards ensure to not waste money in purifying water if it's not for drinking. For examples if Aldegar adopts a classification of water by its use and sets different standards, we may save money not performing an ultra purification of waters destinate for laundry, washing machines and so on. 2. Private organizations act for making profit. State in this case may act for the comunity. 3. Highly restrictions are the one real solution to change direction of our climate problems |
| Date | 12:05:24, December 03, 2010 CET | From | People's Party - Republican Democrats | To | Debating the Eco-Revolution Bill |
| Message | 1. Setting different standards seems more like an exercise for saving money than a measure for improving water quality, doesn't it? 2. Certainly, private firms act for their own profit. That is why we would like to keep the state agency, which awards contracts to private firms, oversees the work the do, and can impose sanctions if the private firms do not fulfill their contracts. We prefer this arrangement to the same organization doing both the work and having the power to oversee it. 3. As we said, highly restrictive seems a little too much for us, we would feel able to support strong standards, but, alas, that doesn't seem to be possible. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes | Total Seats: 60 | ||
| no | Total Seats: 139 | ||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Head to the "Language assistance" thread to receive and offer help with translations: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6368 |
| Random quote: "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." - Thomas Jefferson |