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: Eviromental Protections Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Democratic Socialist's
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: May 2304
Description[?]:
| To institute new, and reform existing, laws with regards to our Enviroment, with the intent of protecting the natural wonders for future generations |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Forest management.
Old value:: All forestry is performed by private companies.
Current: There is a national agency which owns and manages all forest land.
Proposed: There is a national agency which owns all forests, but subcontracts the work to private companies.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government regulation of pollution in industry.
Old value:: The government enforces moderate pollution restrictions.
Current: The government enforces moderate pollution restrictions.
Proposed: The government enforces highly restrictive industrial pollution standards.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 11:31:03, October 22, 2006 CET | From | National Radical Union | To | Debating the Eviromental Protections Act |
| Message | Well, why not... but it'd be terribly expensive... |
| Date | 13:49:58, October 22, 2006 CET | From | Central Block | To | Debating the Eviromental Protections Act |
| Message | Much too expensive to regulate. |
| Date | 06:56:05, October 23, 2006 CET | From | Democratic Socialist's | To | Debating the Eviromental Protections Act |
| Message | Wouldn't the welfare of our population be benifited by this, thus reducing burden on our healthcare system? The less we polute, and the better we look after our enviroment, the better for our people. |
| Date | 13:29:45, October 23, 2006 CET | From | Central Block | To | Debating the Eviromental Protections Act |
| Message | Itīd be cheaper to increase spending for the healthcare budget than to enforce this bill. |
| Date | 22:08:56, October 23, 2006 CET | From | Democratic Socialist's | To | Debating the Eviromental Protections Act |
| Message | That is a very short sighted view. Damage done now to our enviroment could have a drastic impact on the health of our citizerns, including increases in respitory diesease and forms of cancer, which would only increase with time as the effects of the enviromental damage takes hold. This, in turn, would lead to greater healthcare costs. Slowing or halting that damage now means less strain on the healthcare system in the future, meaning that the costs now will save us greater costs in the future. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 458 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: It is not allowed to call more than 5 elections in 5 game years in a nation. The default sanction for a player persisting in the early election tactic will be a seat reset. |
| Random quote: "The first step in freeing yourself from social restrictions is the realization that there is no such thing as a 'safe' code of conduct, one that would earn everyone's approval. Your actions can always be condemned by someone, for being too bold or too apathetic, for being too conformist or too nonconformist, for being too liberal or too conservative. So it's necessary to decide whose approval is important to you." - Harry Browne |