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: Protection of Beluzian Forest Act 4399
Details
Submitted by[?]: United Front of Beluzia
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: April 4400
Description[?]:
| This bill will bring in an important change for the new millennium and allow the Beluzian environment to be appreciated and loved. Forest's hold a big importance when it comes to climate change and, with CC being a growing worry for Beluzian People this bill will help to put them minds at ease. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Forest management.
Old value:: Local governments are required to operate forestry agencies, which own and manage all forest land.
Current: There is a national agency which exists side-by-side with commercial forestry companies.
Proposed: There is a national agency which owns and manages all forest land.
Article 2
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.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 15:27:00, May 27, 2018 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Protection of Beluzian Forest Act 4399 |
| Message | Governmental progs need taxpayers cash. Liberty believes the current local government protection is adequate. We'd like to see a reason for national government intervetion on this one before i vote yes. |
| Date | 16:40:50, May 27, 2018 CET | From | Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the Protection of Beluzian Forest Act 4399 |
| Message | The KWRF lists its reasons to support government intervention: i) Protection and preservation of unique natural and other resources; open space; and public access, especially for recreation. Some support land protection from development. ii) National benefits can include using lands to produce wood products for housing or energy from traditional (oil, gas, coal) and alternative/renewable sources (wind, solar, geothermal, biomass) ii) Other national benefits include: clean water for downstream uses; biodiversity for ecological resilience and adaptability; and wild animals and wild places for the human spirit. ii) Local benefits can include economic activities, such as livestock grazing, timber for sawmills, ski areas, tourism, and other types of development. Local benefits could also be scenic vistas and areas for recreation—picnicking, sightseeing, backpacking, four-wheeling, snowmobiling, hunting and fishing, and much more. iii) Public lands support many uses from activities such as bird watching to energy development. Many species of wildlife, although owned by the Socialist Autonomous Republics (we need to change this to Canton right away), should spend their life cycles on federally-owned lands, where they are able to be protected effectively if government park agency is placed there iv) Public lands provide extensive opportunities for recreation and a lifestyle that more and more people are seeking in our mobile economy. v) If federal ownership of lands is successful, some Republics who do not like it might sue the federal government, an effort that could take years, cost taxpayers millions of dollars, and could generate much controversy. Even if successful, it’s not clear how a transfer of ownership from multiple federal agencies to unknown Cantonal (we like this more than autonomous republics) agencies would even take place. vi) Federal and Cantonal management policies are fundamentally different, and those differences are set in legal stone. Where Cantonal management will dictate profit first and protect the interests of the oil, gas, mining companies that exploit the natural beauty and resources of cantons, federal management prioritises the needs of citizens, and the long term health of both the land and its resources. vii) Cantons would need federal money to manage all land, so either way, it will still be funded by federal government. Furthermore, with so many revenue sources, administration priorities, and red tape, there would necessarily be an ongoing financial exchange between federal governments. No matter the mechanism—whether a fee or a share of revenue generated—the Canton would have to be compensated for managing federal public lands. viii) One criticism often leveled at federal management of our public land is that those revenues don’t benefit nearby communities. That's actually wrong. In addition to the visitors, businesses, and residents this land brings to these areas, there’s a significant, direct financial contribution. It’s just been forgotten. Revenue received by Socialist Autonomous Republics in the past and its political subdivisions in connection with the Lands includes many revenue made from government funded projects, revenue that is distributed to the Autonomous Republic. Revenue (mineral, livestock grazing etc) already being received by Socialist Autonomous Republics is a critical resource used to run Autonomous Republics and presumably none of it would be available for managing federal public lands. Furthermore the revenue made are critical resources to local communities for a wide variety of government functions and purposes including but not limited to roads and schools. For example, Negunia made $15.39 billion BEL a year from its 338,100 km of federal land prior to the transfer to local governments, compared to only 1.39 billion BEL if in local government hands. That money went directly to the autonomous republic government—without it having to pay a cent of the federal government’s annual budget for managing that land, while local governments had to pay. ix) Other Organisations Need the Revenue from Public Lands: What happens to the other revenue extracted from autonomous republics? Many go to federal coffers, to be applied to a variety of programs. They help fund water projects across the country. Many farmers relies on other autonomous republics for water. Hydroelectric power stations generate 40 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year. Ten trillion gallons of water from all autonomous republics is delivered to 89 million people annually. Many autonomous republics have recreation sites that have 50 million annual visitors domestically and from tourism. This supports millions of jobs in the ecotourism industry. x) The resources would be better utilised being directed at fixing the problems and working to encourage the development of a system more attentive and responsive to the voice of local communities instead of directing resources towards an effort that would ultimately merely pass on the myriad of problems that exist today in the autonomous republics (allowing oil, gas, mining, coal companies to exploit resources and destroy natural beauty) xi) Transferring federally managed lands to local governments is a terrible idea. Having lived for many years in a nation that once had federal government controlled land, we do not anticipate any substantial gains in revenue production or additional sources of revenue with any transfer of management—certainly not enough to offset the enormous costs such an endeavour would likely entail. |
| Date | 12:20:27, May 28, 2018 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Protection of Beluzian Forest Act 4399 |
| Message | Liberty wonder is some kind of public-private partnership solution could be found for this problem. We'd also like to explore the revenue figures for Negunia a little bit closer. Can the KWRF provide Liberty with a source for their information? |
| Date | 14:24:08, May 28, 2018 CET | From | Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the Protection of Beluzian Forest Act 4399 |
| Message | OOC: There are no such figures. The game is so outdated and backwards that many politicians have to make up data as they go |
| Date | 19:36:53, May 28, 2018 CET | From | Beluzian Party | To | Debating the Protection of Beluzian Forest Act 4399 |
| Message | After calling numerous polls we found out a majority of Beluzians agree, we are voting yes. |
| Date | 14:35:57, May 29, 2018 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Protection of Beluzian Forest Act 4399 |
| Message | OOC: I thought so. There is no way a forest land would generate b15 billion in revenue. That's the current budget for our military which itself needs revising.. I appreciate the need to make numbers up but they should have some grounding in reality or be supportable in some way with real life examples as a guide. |
| Date | 14:40:53, May 29, 2018 CET | From | Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the Protection of Beluzian Forest Act 4399 |
| Message | OCC: Yeah, I didn't think this through before making up a number. It was a mistake on my part . |
| Date | 16:07:24, May 29, 2018 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Protection of Beluzian Forest Act 4399 |
| Message | OOC: NP. Thanks for admitting your mistake, many wouldn't. Negunia sounds like a good place to put the forest when it comes to doing the map. Agreement pending of course. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 375 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 308 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: The grey space in the east is populated by the forum-based countries, known in-game as the former colonies or the "Third World". These countries are managed by the Third World Coordinator but players can request control of individual countries in the Third World Control Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8302 |
| Random quote: "If the Third World War is fought with nuclear weapons, the fourth will be fought with bows and arrows." - Louis Mountbatten |