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: Forest Protection Bill of 2186
Details
Submitted by[?]: AntiNeoCon 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: March 2187
Description[?]:
| A bill to help protect the forests, and, in due turn, the environment. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning forest protection.
Old value:: Forests have strictly enforced protection. Felling is limited to fire breaks.
Current: Forests are protected. Logging is allowed by licence only.
Proposed: Forests are protected. Logging is allowed by licence only.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 04:16:53, February 16, 2006 CET | From | Corporatists for Quanzari | To | Debating the Forest Protection Bill of 2186 |
| Message | This seems acceptable. |
| Date | 04:21:04, February 16, 2006 CET | From | Socialist Ecology Party | To | Debating the Forest Protection Bill of 2186 |
| Message | This is insanity, the forests must be protected at all costs. |
| Date | 04:27:05, February 16, 2006 CET | From | AntiNeoCon Party | To | Debating the Forest Protection Bill of 2186 |
| Message | the minute amount of logging that will take place will benefit the economy drastically |
| Date | 04:31:31, February 16, 2006 CET | From | Socialist Ecology Party | To | Debating the Forest Protection Bill of 2186 |
| Message | "A bill to help protect the forests, and, in due turn, the environment." This statement is comletely ignorant in very way, no matter how one looks at it. If there is logging occuring, which is clearly stated in the proposal, then obviously trees are being cut down. This fact inherently goes against the above statement, it does not protect forests. |
| Date | 04:32:05, February 16, 2006 CET | From | Socialist Ecology Party | To | Debating the Forest Protection Bill of 2186 |
| Message | edit- every* |
| Date | 04:33:09, February 16, 2006 CET | From | AntiNeoCon Party | To | Debating the Forest Protection Bill of 2186 |
| Message | it does, because of the tree replacement regulation that is in effect. |
| Date | 04:39:03, February 16, 2006 CET | From | Socialist Ecology Party | To | Debating the Forest Protection Bill of 2186 |
| Message | I am well aware of the tree replacement regulation that is in effect, considering the SEP was the one who put it into practice. It is better that trees are allowed to grow naturally and uninterupted, rather than a continuous cycle of logging and replantation. Another fact to note, is that our nation is one of the smallest nations by area and has one of the highest population densities in the whole of Terra. There could not be much logging to go around anyway, better to leave the forests and the wildlife which inhabits them untouched. |
| Date | 04:42:28, February 16, 2006 CET | From | AntiNeoCon Party | To | Debating the Forest Protection Bill of 2186 |
| Message | while this is true, a minute amount of logging, regulated by the government, would be healthy for the environment. |
| Date | 04:50:05, February 16, 2006 CET | From | Socialist Ecology Party | To | Debating the Forest Protection Bill of 2186 |
| Message | How is logging trees and uprooting wildlife from their natural habitat healthy in any way what so ever? Here in lies the problem of what you suggest, you are not looking at the larger picture; when logging occurs it is not simply enough to replant the trees and ooh yeah everything is wonderful again. The entire ecosystem must restart, the replanted trees must be alloted time to grow and wildlife must return to the area, wildlife can only return after the trees have regrown enough to provide them with everything they had when they were cut down. This process does not happen over night, in fact it takes years, often decades for logged forests to even be near the point they were at when they were logged. |
| Date | 05:00:35, February 16, 2006 CET | From | AntiNeoCon Party | To | Debating the Forest Protection Bill of 2186 |
| Message | you're looking on much too big of a scale. the logging that occurs will be license only, and only in spots where there is little to wildlife. then, after the logging is complete and the trees are replanted, a new ecosystem can flourish. |
| Date | 05:52:41, February 16, 2006 CET | From | Green Socialists | To | Debating the Forest Protection Bill of 2186 |
| Message | I am inclined to vote no to this proposal because I am inclined to think that this bill is harmful to the environment. |
| Date | 01:04:32, February 17, 2006 CET | From | Socialist Ecology Party | To | Debating the Forest Protection Bill of 2186 |
| Message | Green Socialists that is great. Environmentalism is the way to go. Greedy logging companies seeking increased profit would clearly overlook the effects on the environment. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 152 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 598 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Discuss flag designs at the Flag Designs thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=37 |
| Random quote: "We must face the fact that the preservation of individual freedom is incompatible with a full satisfaction of our views of distributive justice." - Friedrich August von Hayek |