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: Recycling
Details
Submitted by[?]: Maroon Party
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: September 2054
Description[?]:
| Our current policy of recycling actually hurts the environment--let me explain: If it costs more to recycle something than to throw it away, that means that more inputs are being used in recycling (i.e. the trasnportation needed to carry something over the the recycling center, the building of the recycling center, the labor, etc.) To get all these inputs, it becomes necessary to hurt the environment (logging to build the center, burning fossil fuels for transportation and energy, etc.) Thus, in some hard-to-recycle goods, it take mores resources and thus is actually more harmful to the environment to recycle them than to just throw them away. For this reason, I propose that, while the government maintain its subsidy of recycling centers, the actual process of recycling become voluntary and determined by market incentives (i.e. if the cost of recycling is low, then people will recycle rather than throw away, which is good for the environment since fewer resources are used in recycling, but if the opposite case is true, so is the opposite logic). |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government-sponsored recycling programs.
Old value:: The government funds recycling facilities and enforces mandatory recycling for residents, commercial enterprise, and industry.
Current: The government funds recycling facilities and enforces mandatory recycling for residents, commercial enterprise, and industry.
Proposed: The government funds recycling facilities for public use.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 18:13:04, May 18, 2005 CET | From | Dorvik Conservative Party | To | Debating the Recycling |
| Message | We'll vote yes for this although we believe recycling should be left to private industries |
| Date | 18:15:55, May 18, 2005 CET | From | To | Debating the Recycling |
| Message | We fail to see the logic in this proposition, so we will not back it up. |
| Date | 19:51:53, May 18, 2005 CET | From | Maroon Party | To | Debating the Recycling |
| Message | The logic is that the cost of something reflects the amount of resources that go into doing that thing. If recycling is more expensive than throwing something away, then that means that more resources are being used for recycling. These resources are taken out of the environment, and thus causes harm to the environment. Whereas, if recycling was cheaper than throwing things away, people would do it anyway--which is a reason for the government to provide incentives to recycle and charge people for trash disposal, but not force people to recycle, as it could hurt the environment more than help it. |
| Date | 21:23:30, May 18, 2005 CET | From | United Territorial Party | To | Debating the Recycling |
| Message | Ideally, the cost of recycling to people should be zero with no extra hassle. These are the only circumstances in which voluntary recycling can really work. For now i am voting to keep the current system until the necessary processes can be initiated to facilitate voluntary recycling without the centres. |
| Date | 03:01:31, May 19, 2005 CET | From | Maroon Party | To | Debating the Recycling |
| Message | Ideally, the cost of recycling would be zero--but it's not. Things require resources. Resources come from the environment. Whenever the cost of recycling is higher than the cost of producing something new, more resources are being used in recycling, thus harming the environment. Recycling is the thing to do in most cases, but in some it can do more harm to the ecosystem than good. That's why things should be taken on a case-by-case basis, rather than making categorical mandates. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 25 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 52 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 15 |
| Random fact: Players who consent to a particular role-play by acknowledging it in their own role-play cannot then disown it or withdraw their consent from it. For example, if player A role-plays the assassination of player B's character, and player B then acknowledges the assassination in a news post, but then backtracks and insists the assassination did not happen, then he will be required under the rules to accept the validity of the assassination role-play. |
| Random quote: "Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary." - Mahatma Gandhi |