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: National Environmental Protection Act 2165
Details
Submitted by[?]: RSDP - Democratic Front
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: December 2180
Description[?]:
| An Act to enhance national co-ordination in the field of environmental protection. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning forest protection.
Old value:: Forest protection is left to local governments.
Current: Forests are protected. Logging is allowed by licence only.
Proposed: Forests are protected. Logging is allowed by licence only.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government regulation of hunting.
Old value:: The matters of hunting and fishing are handled by local governments.
Current: Hunting and fishing activities are restricted to designated areas and periods.
Proposed: Hunting and fishing activities are restricted to designated areas and periods.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Government policy regarding a national park system.
Old value:: The government devolves park policy to local governments.
Current: The government devolves park policy to local governments.
Proposed: The government funds and maintains a network of national parks and/or marine protected areas.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 13:57:42, January 03, 2006 CET | From |  Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the National Environmental Protection Act 2165 |
| Message | National agencies owning all the forrests? What about people who own them already? Add that to the essential destruction of the Rutanian logging industry, as well as fishing industry and then spending the money that you just destroyed in pointlessly "maintaining" nature and you have a truely awful proposal. |
| Date | 14:30:10, January 03, 2006 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the National Environmental Protection Act 2165 |
| Message | First of all we regret the naming of this bill, which is about centralising the policy with regards to forrestry. "Nationalising Forestry Act" would, in our opinion, be a better name. The RFP favours tight environmental standards to protect our children, but the RDSP knows that we also favour devolution where possible. |
| Date | 18:39:12, January 03, 2006 CET | From |  RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the National Environmental Protection Act 2165 |
| Message | @ the RFP: That is the problem, environmental affairs CANNOT be devolved to the local level. The environmental and ecological problems in one locality affect those in all other localities. If 4 out of 5 regions were to ban hunting, and the 5th region would allow it freely, the numbers of wild animals would drop several in all 5 regions. @ the LIP: we are willing to compromise by removing the first article, the second article will not be removed. Is it too much to ask, in order to protect the wildlife and the environment, that logging companies get a license for logging in a certain area. We are willing to compromise on the second article by adding an addendum saying that licenses for logging a certain area can be obtained by companies for an unlimited duration, thus creating "commercial forests" which ensure the continued existence of the logging industry. That system has been succesfully applied in many countries, and I'm sure we can work out an acceptable text for that addendum. The fishing industry would not be destroyed under this bill, on the contrary! By preventing overfishing, the existence of the fishing industry is guaranteed in the long run! Surely it is not acceptable that one company is allowed to literally empty our waters making the entire industry go bankrupt? Because that is precisely what can happen under current legislation. If we limit fishing to certain areas and periods, there is a guarantee for fishermen and the fishing industry that there will still be enough fish left next time. If this bill passes, the fish stocks will always be able to replenish themselves in a natural manner (which costs the companies nothing), while the ecological system will be able to recuperate. There are already many places in the world which are no longer of use to the fishing industry because of overfishing, we cannot allow the same thing to happen to Rutania! |
| Date | 20:18:44, January 03, 2006 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the National Environmental Protection Act 2165 |
| Message | In that case I am afraid that we have an honest disagreement with regards to ideology. We *do* agree that environmental standards ought to be universal, but see no reason for the management of these standards to be excercised by the Federal government. |
| Date | 21:42:08, January 03, 2006 CET | From | Libertarian Alcoholic Party II | To | Debating the National Environmental Protection Act 2165 |
| Message | For anyone who's thinking of supporting this bill, just take into to consideration that it effectively signs ownership of ALL forest land TO THE GOVERNMENT. This means eminent domain against ANY private citizen who owns a piece of land with lots of trees on it. Even worse, the government then effectively gives, via corporate welfare, the wealth-producing capacity of the land away to a few select private companies. This joke of a bill just shovels land rights from the people right into the pockets of THE MAN - both varieties of the Man, the Businessman type Man AND the Government Man, in one fell swoop. |
| Date | 21:47:45, January 03, 2006 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the National Environmental Protection Act 2165 |
| Message | I have to repeat that we are willing to make a compromise by removing the first article, and, on the second article, that the forrests would not be given to a "few select private companies". Any company would be able to apply for a license to log, and if certain objective requirements are fulfilled, any company can get a license. |
| Date | 21:49:14, January 03, 2006 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the National Environmental Protection Act 2165 |
| Message | We also must add that "subcontracting the work" in the first article means maintaining the forrest, not exploiting it. Any company would still be able to apply for a logging license, and if we remove the first article any company can own a piece of forrest for logging. |
| Date | 21:49:29, January 03, 2006 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the National Environmental Protection Act 2165 |
| Message | NOTE: Article 1 removed. |
| Date | 19:02:32, January 04, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the National Environmental Protection Act 2165 |
| Message | RSDP - Thanks for your offer of mediation, but we oppose all of these articles. |
| Date | 15:34:16, January 05, 2006 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the National Environmental Protection Act 2165 |
| Message | Why? Surely all your concerns would be addressed if you'd allow us to work out a compromise! |
| Date | 21:09:57, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the National Environmental Protection Act 2165 |
| Message | Why? All of the proposals that we support are going in completely the other direction towards deregulation. Giving any ground on this is nothing but disadvantageous for us, so why should we do it? |
| Date | 14:50:01, January 30, 2006 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the National Environmental Protection Act 2165 |
| Message | We agree wholeheartedly with the points raised by the Liberal Imperialist Party and would like to see this sent to vote so it can be defeated |
| Date | 18:16:21, February 03, 2006 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the National Environmental Protection Act 2165 |
| Message | If you don't add to the debate, don't say anything at all. You self-declared "libertarians" really have an annoying habitude of wasting this assembly's time. |
| Date | 13:13:27, February 04, 2006 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the National Environmental Protection Act 2165 |
| Message | Says a party that cant defend the economics or reasoning behind their socialist bills and just calls a bill in the interests of the working man without any justification We wont be taking lectures from the RSDP on debating. We did not need to add much anyway, the LIP had made all the points we were going to make |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 260 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 207 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 132 |
| Random fact: In Culturally Protected nations, it is the responsibility of players to ensure the candidate boxes on their Party Overview screens are filled in with appropriate names. If a player is allotted seats in a Cabinet bill and has not filled in names for the relevant candidate position, then the program will automatically fill in the positions with names which might not necessarily be appropriate for the Cultural Protocols. |
| Random quote: "It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required." - Winston Churchill |