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: Environment Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Fascism Now! 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: December 2198
Description[?]:
| All plants, trees and animals were put on earth for man to use as resources, so that's what they shall be, just resources. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning forest protection.
Old value:: Forests are protected. Logging is allowed by licence only.
Current: Forests are protected. Logging is allowed by licence only.
Proposed: The government has no policy on forest protection.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government regulation of pollution in industry.
Old value:: The government enforces moderate pollution restrictions.
Current: The government enforces highly restrictive industrial pollution standards.
Proposed: Industrial pollution is not regulated by the government.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 15:02:48, March 11, 2006 CET | From |  Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Environment Bill |
| Message | I like it but article1 is a little too much. I would support if it's toned down a little bit. |
| Date | 16:31:45, March 11, 2006 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Environment Bill |
| Message | Neither of them are needed and would cause harm to the environment and our citizens. |
| Date | 17:14:59, March 11, 2006 CET | From | Fascism Now! Party | To | Debating the Environment Bill |
| Message | I changed article 1. You think trees are more useful when they're being looked at and admired? We think there more important when used as resources, which would actually help our citizens. |
| Date | 17:39:51, March 11, 2006 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Environment Bill |
| Message | I feel that logging needs to be controlled so that excess deforestation does not occur but that we still gain money and resources from them. A lack of forests leads to problems such as flooding and soil erosion. Of course they're nice to look at too which can bring in tourism income. |
| Date | 17:41:40, March 11, 2006 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Environment Bill |
| Message | I feel that logging needs to be controlled so that excess deforestation does not occur but that we still gain money and resources from them. A lack of forests leads to problems such as flooding and soil erosion. Of course they're nice to look at too which can bring in tourism income. |
| Date | 01:25:02, March 12, 2006 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Environment Bill |
| Message | It's not in the logging industries best interest to clear all our forest in one fell swoop. The need to self regulate the clearing of forest by the industry is how they will remain in buisness. The licence itself did nothing to protect the forest it was only a paper barrier to the possible improvements made by our logging industry. |
| Date | 11:26:43, March 12, 2006 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Environment Bill |
| Message | "It's not in the logging industries best interest to clear all our forest in one fell swoop." - It's in their short term interest and that can often outweigh its long term disadvantages. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 76 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 182 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 142 |
| Random fact: Players are expected to behave in a courteous, co-operative manner and make a reasonable effort to act with the consent of all players involved, even where the rules do not make consent strictly necessary. In particular, players have a responsibility to take reasonable care that other players are not misinformed either about the role-play or the Game Rules. |
| Random quote: "A Bill of Rights that means what the majority wants it to mean is worthless." - Antonin Scalia |