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: Federal Ecological Policy Review Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Interstate Centrist Party
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: August 2053
Description[?]:
| The Federal park's budget is costing the state a small fortune whilst park visitor figures are on a downward trend. The KNP suggests the Government vote to cut funding in this area while still keeping specific areas designated ecological preservation zones. The money saved can be better used elsewhere. |
Proposals
Article 1
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 designates ecological preservation zones but does not fund their oversight.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:33:10, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Neoliberalist Party | To | Debating the Federal Ecological Policy Review Act |
| Message | On the contrary the budget is not a small forune and we have yet to see this downward trend. Cutting funding would eliminate "Park Rangers" who ensure that these protected zones remain as such. We are opposed to this bill. |
| Date | 01:35:12, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Interstate Centrist Party | To | Debating the Federal Ecological Policy Review Act |
| Message | Polls indicate a national trend against state funding of ecological projects. The money saved by scrapping the funding can be used more wisely elsewhere. |
| Date | 01:44:25, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Neoliberalist Party | To | Debating the Federal Ecological Policy Review Act |
| Message | Was it not your own party that opposed Abortion Safety, regardless of polls? It is not a matter of funding the parks it is a matter of finishing what this nation starts. If we designate zones, it is our duty to ensure that the regulations are enforced, such as through the park ranger program. We do not favor this motion because it is designation without carrying through on its implementation. We would even find the granting of zones to local governments, or no zones, to be more favorable than this current proposal |
| Date | 01:51:03, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Interstate Centrist Party | To | Debating the Federal Ecological Policy Review Act |
| Message | The park zones will be regulated but they cannot continue to be a bottemless pit for federal money. They must be able to support themselves though better managment and increased visitor figures. |
| Date | 02:06:02, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Neoliberalist Party | To | Debating the Federal Ecological Policy Review Act |
| Message | We agree that they cannot be a bottomless pit for money, but we also believe that if we are to involve ourselves in the park situation, we must carry it through, and to create a half step program in the parks would be a mistake. Again we would agree to shifting the responsibility to the local governments, but creating zones and then not ensuring the regulations are carried out is just insane. We must either cut the funding and place the parks into the hands of the local governments, or finish what we start and ensure that our federal regulations are carried out in the federal parks. |
| Date | 02:32:54, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Neo-Libertarian Party of Kalistan | To | Debating the Federal Ecological Policy Review Act |
| Message | We support this bill, because ecological preservation is a money hole for the government that could easially be subsidized. |
| Date | 03:51:41, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Pansexual Peace Party -- FNORD | To | Debating the Federal Ecological Policy Review Act |
| Message | We cannot support this bill. The distruction of our few national parks and forests would be an ecological disaster, nnot to mention a black eye in full view of the voters. We have a responsibility to future generations. The preservation of our history, human and natural, is a responsibility of the government. |
| Date | 06:30:11, May 16, 2005 CET | From | To | Debating the Federal Ecological Policy Review Act |
| Message | The SoG is vehemently against this bill. It is even more vehemently against those "polls" that keep popping up in debates, and is considering proposing a bill to have all poll-makers extradited. Again, the environment is not just a "luxury" that "takes away valuable funding that could be used elsewhere". This is Nature - is there a greater heritage than Mother Earth? Are we honestly so naive as to think we can survive without her? And what's that silly argument about visitor income? Nature is not a commercial endeaver. The current bill is in place for the greater good, for the future. Without the environment, we may as well stop having children, because the world we'll be leaving them will not be a pleasant one. |
| Date | 15:02:30, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Imperial Kalistan Party | To | Debating the Federal Ecological Policy Review Act |
| Message | The NDP, although is strongly in support of Green projects, must concur with this proposal. While a National Park system is in fact for the greater good, we can no longer dictate our pleasure to the masses. The NDP supports natural reserves for the sake of the People, not for nature's own sake. |
| Date | 15:29:47, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Neoliberalist Party | To | Debating the Federal Ecological Policy Review Act |
| Message | The CNP does agree with the NDPs comments, however we still believe that we must finish what we start. While the CNP would rather see these federal zones eliminated and granted to the states, this is a step in that direction. Our only concern, however, has been finishing what we begin. While we do wish to see a phase out, we do not wish to place zones with regulations to repress the people, while at the same time not enforcing those regulations through a park ranger program. Our ecological zones must either be granted to the states, or fully supported by us. While this bill is a move in the right direction, it is still only a half step, and the CNP will ensure, even if it supports this measure now, that this half step starts the journey to the complete transition. |
| Date | 17:22:38, May 16, 2005 CET | From | To | Debating the Federal Ecological Policy Review Act |
| Message | "The NDP supports natural reserves for the sake of the People, not for nature's own sake." In other words, the NDP does not care about making our nation a better place, it just cares about pleasing the voters? The SoG finds this a rather pitiful attitude. |
| Date | 18:38:22, May 17, 2005 CET | From | To | Debating the Federal Ecological Policy Review Act |
| Message | The TDPK wishes to point out, that the government of Kalistan already has an INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT with the Nations of Lodamun and Gardous, to protect our east coast marine area, and to fund that protection. Would the NDP make the word of our government worth less then the paper it is written on? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 343 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 44 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Particracy isn't just a game, it also has a forum, where players meet up to discuss role-playing, talk about in-game stuff, run their own newspaper or organisation and even discuss non-game and real-life issues! Check it out: http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "'The illusion of Pontesi nationhood'. The Serpent speaks. How can they say these things? How can they call our country an illusion? You can see it clear as day, these people won’t stop until they’ve destroyed us all." - Morgan Einar, former Pontesian general |