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: Ecological Freedom Act of 2187
Details
Submitted by[?]: Malivianese Militarist 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: January 2216
Description[?]:
| It is agreed that the enforcement of mandatory recycling laws will cease and The government enforces moderate pollution restrictions while still encouraging eco-friendly industrial operations through tax deductions. So ordered by the Assembly. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government regulation of pollution in industry.
Old value:: The government enforces highly restrictive industrial pollution standards.
Current: The government enforces moderate pollution restrictions.
Proposed: The government enforces moderate pollution restrictions.
Article 2
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: Local governments decide about this.
Proposed: The government funds recycling facilities for public use.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:22:28, February 17, 2006 CET | From | Social Democrat League | To | Debating the Ecological Freedom Act of 2187 |
| Message | No, now that we have an environmentally friendly state, we can't just throw it away. |
| Date | 19:46:42, February 17, 2006 CET | From | Malivianese Militarist Party | To | Debating the Ecological Freedom Act of 2187 |
| Message | These proposals maintain an environmentally friendly state with the scaling back of restrictive environmental laws more suitable for an eco-dictatorship. ONLY cars using environmentally friendly fuels are allowed?! What kind of tree-hugging backwards nation is this? Also, since when is it alright for the gestapo to arrest you for not recycling? Let the Ecological Freedom commence with the passage of this Act! ~For the Federation people!~ |
| Date | 12:13:20, February 18, 2006 CET | From | Social Democrat League | To | Debating the Ecological Freedom Act of 2187 |
| Message | Because eventually environmentally friendly fuels is all we will have left. Those kinds of fuels are not more expensive than fossil fuels. And environmentally friendly fuels can be produced on Malivian products alone, fossil fuels cannot. Even so, our public transport system is excellent. We can support Article 3, as we feel that the recycling facilities will provide a more than adequate job of waste disposal. It is not necessary at this point for mandatory recycling laws. |
| Date | 14:35:54, February 18, 2006 CET | From | Imperial Malivian Party | To | Debating the Ecological Freedom Act of 2187 |
| Message | We believe article 2 to be pointless, Malivia has been a clean fuel country for decades no one in the country own a fossil fuel burning car anymore. |
| Date | 23:33:16, February 18, 2006 CET | From | Malivianese Militarist Party | To | Debating the Ecological Freedom Act of 2187 |
| Message | We will remove Article 2 in exchange for keeping Article 1. |
| Date | 11:38:51, February 19, 2006 CET | From | Social Democrat League | To | Debating the Ecological Freedom Act of 2187 |
| Message | Acceptable, though we should still officially encourage firms to keep pollution down to a minimum, perhaps even subsidise companies that actively work on an environmentally friendly basis. |
| Date | 14:55:27, February 19, 2006 CET | From |  Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Ecological Freedom Act of 2187 |
| Message | These laws have been in effect for decades. Technology has long caught up to the laws and they should not be causing any problems in the economy. We can support article 3 but the rest would be a major step backwards. |
| Date | 18:26:59, February 19, 2006 CET | From | Malivianese Militarist Party | To | Debating the Ecological Freedom Act of 2187 |
| Message | Alright, we have removed Article 2 and have stipulated that the Federation government will still encourage eco-friendly industrial operations through tax deductions. What do the other Federation parties think about this Act? |
| Date | 00:50:58, March 16, 2006 CET | From | Free Progress Alliance | To | Debating the Ecological Freedom Act of 2187 |
| Message | We are opposed since we are content with the current status of affairs. Our economy still functions and still provides as standard of happiness to all regardless of restrictive environmental regulations. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 61 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 140 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 100 |
| Random fact: Particracy does not allow real-life brand names (eg. Coca Cola, McDonalds, Microsoft). However, in the case of military equipment brand names it is permitted to use simple number-letter combinations (eg. T-90 and F-22) borrowed from real life, and also simple generic names, like those of animals (eg. Leopard and Jaguar). |
| Random quote: "The only place where democracy comes before work is in the dictionary." - Ralph Nader |