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: Clean Earth act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Cooperative Commonwealth Federation
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: July 2071
Description[?]:
| Agricultural policy affects us all. Pollution knows no borders. This act would prevent earth-based contaminants from destroying the agricultural livelihood of Lodamun's people. 1. Toxic pesticides shall not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that they have no long-term effects on the soil and human health. 2. Irrigation shall only be undertaken if it can be demonstrated that the water table will not be lowered. 3. Waste byproducts of farming shall not be dumped into the water supply, but must be disposed of safely. 4. The national government shall be empowered to set nationwide environmental standards pertaining to agriculture and land use. Farms, industry and agricultural cooperatives will police themselves, with random spot checks permitted to monitor compliance. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:19:34, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Clean Earth act |
| Message | There are two bills in debate on agricultural policy. This bill is intended to add Green principles ot whichever one passes. As always, suggestions for improvement are welcome. And blasts of orthodox free-market ideology too, i suppose. ;) |
| Date | 20:00:15, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Clean Earth act |
| Message | We are ammused by the way that natural pest control is assumed to have no lopng term effects. Wouyld you care to define toxic and natural for us, as we had understood that that chemicals are natural rather than supernatural ot unnatural. |
| Date | 22:44:00, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Clean Earth act |
| Message | Natural: citronella candles. Toxic: DDT. |
| Date | 00:21:06, June 22, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Clean Earth act |
| Message | Why are citronella candles, which are man made, any more natural than DDT which is man made? |
| Date | 09:58:25, June 22, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Clean Earth act |
| Message | m-w.com Main Entry: 1nat·u·ral Pronunciation: 'na-ch&-r&l, 'nach-r&l Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin naturalis of nature, from natura nature 8 a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not marvelous or supernatural <natural causes> b : formulated by human reason alone rather than revelation <natural religion> <natural rights> c : having a normal or usual character <events followed their natural course> "Formulated by human reason alone"=man made HA |
| Date | 18:36:22, June 22, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Clean Earth act |
| Message | So man made is natural. What we had always suspected. Now what is the difference between citronella candles and DDT? |
| Date | 21:13:58, June 22, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Clean Earth act |
| Message | Citronella candles burn? releasing harmful fumes into the air as opposed to the soil? Different form of environmental harm perhaps? |
| Date | 21:18:16, June 22, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Clean Earth act |
| Message | Yes, the air is choked with the toxic fumes of citronella candles. Get a grip, people. However, if other prefer a more restrictive definition, the "natural products" loophole will be eliminated. The point of the bill, obviously, is to ban pesticides. |
| Date | 23:15:02, June 22, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Clean Earth act |
| Message | So we ban pesticides and keep the pests, is that the idea? If so, then I would imagine that it will not obtain much support. |
| Date | 04:22:36, June 23, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Clean Earth act |
| Message | At worst, we need water soluble pesticides, fat soluble chemicals like DDT cause problems that work their way back to us, and hit us hardest. |
| Date | 06:36:19, June 23, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Clean Earth act |
| Message | So the concern is for us as humans not for nature as a whole. It is not an ecological matter at all then. Water soluble pesticides would contaminate the water table would they not, by the standards of the CFC-Greens. No, we'll just have to make do with insufficient food and epidemics of malaria, yellow fever, Dengue and other insect born diseases. AS the alternative is to release some man made (natural remember) chemicals into the environment |
| Date | 19:15:57, June 23, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Clean Earth act |
| Message | The concern is for the ecosystem as a whole, and especially for human beings who are part of the ecosystem. We are stewards of nature, and this is an environmental initiative. It is also one that has effects for human health. Moving to a vote, in the hopes that parliament as a whole is still governed by moderate pro-environment policy, as it has been under all governments throuighout our country's history. |
| Date | 19:32:47, June 23, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Clean Earth act |
| Message | This act is badly constructed. There is no clear guidelines as to what is and is not to be allowed. there is no clarity as to what constitutes a pesticide. The law would be a waste of time and unenforcable. |
| Date | 20:48:30, June 23, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Clean Earth act |
| Message | "So the concern is for us as humans not for nature as a whole. It is not an ecological matter at all then. " Humans and every other tertiary consumer. |
| Date | 20:52:21, June 23, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Clean Earth act |
| Message | There is a perfectly clear difference between the terms "man-made" and "natural" which has been accessible for users of the English language for a number of years. This parliament is not a school house and we suggest etymologically-challenged members seek assistance with reading and writing elsewhere. However, for the purposes of clarity: Natural pesticides contain low-level toxins used in high concentrations to kill pests in a specific location. Part of the naturalness is that, due to wind and rain and sun, they degrade quickly into harmless components. Man-made pesticides are killer compounds contructed by putting chemicals together to create a new chemical which does not occur naturally in any concentrations. Because the production of such compounds is driven a by short-term profit motive, little or no research is carried out into extraneous reactions, resilience to decomposition or other long-term negative outcomes. DDT was banned decades ago but there is still as much DDT in the world as was ever created (by "man" - therefore "man-made) because it does not decompose. Deep water fish now contain DDT. Human beings now contain DDT. If the Lamb of God was reborn, it too would contain DDT. Given this new understanding, do the ASPs and the TICs have sufficient honour to change their position? |
| Date | 22:06:55, June 23, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Clean Earth act |
| Message | No new understanding has been given. The wording of the law states "Toxic pesticides shall not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that they have no long-term effects on the soil and human health." The explanation provided by CCF-Greens states: "Natural pesticides contain low-level toxins used in high concentrations to kill pests in a specific location." Hence the law would ban natural pesticides. This is the type of confusion that makes us reject the law as impractical. It is not being rejected on a matter of principle. We, as you, are concerned for the protection of our environment. It is being rejected on the basis that this law will not protect anything and push up government expenditure regardless. We would acccept the specific banning of DDT, on the basis of the evidence of its retention in the environment. We do not, however accept tha banning of any and all man made chemicals, using your definition, regardless. It is impossible to show that any chemical does not have long term effects as even water does. |
| Date | 21:29:23, June 24, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Clean Earth act |
| Message | Erratum: We acknowledge the incorrect attribution of the words of the Equitista party to the CCF Greens and unreservedly apologize to both parties. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 160 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 30 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 260 |
| Random fact: Particracy isn't just a game, it also has a forum, where players meet up to discuss role-playing, talk about in-game stuff, run their own newspaper or organisation and even discuss non-game and real-life issues! Check it out: http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "The truth is that men are tired of liberty." - Benito Mussolini |