Difference between revisions of "Repeal "MANDATORY RECYCLING""
m (Repeal "Mandatory Recycling" moved to Repeal "MANDATORY RECYCLING") |
(→Resolution Text) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
==Resolution Text== | ==Resolution Text== | ||
| + | <center>[http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=138 UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #139]</center> | ||
| + | <center><big>''' Repeal "MANDATORY RECYCLING" '''</big></center> | ||
| + | <center> A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution </center> | ||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | {| Align="center" border="0" cellpadding="5" width="66%" style="margin-left:0.5em;"|- | ||
| + | ! align="right" | Category: | ||
| + | | Repeal | ||
| + | ! align="right" | Resolution: | ||
| + | | #13 | ||
| + | ! align="right" | Proposed By: | ||
| + | | [[Herconia]] | ||
| + | |} | ||
| + | '''Description:''' UN Resolution #13: MANDATORY RECYCLING (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Argument:''' OBSERVING the need for practical recycling legislation, | ||
| + | |||
| + | APPALLED by the failures of "Mandatory Recycling" to deliver suitable solutions, and its restriction on the ability of the UN to adopt more workable recycling policies, | ||
| + | |||
| + | REGRETTING the lack of clear guidelines, measurable goals and regulations in aforementioned resolution, | ||
| + | |||
| + | AWARE that not all member states have the industrial capacity for the scale of recycling mandated by this resolution, for which no allowance is made, | ||
| + | |||
| + | CONCERNED by the irresponsibility of forcing member states without the requisite facilities to engage in this level of recycling, | ||
| + | |||
| + | NOTING the distinct possibility of environmental damage caused by inappropriate recycling of materials by member states without developed, safe industrial facilities, | ||
| + | |||
| + | CONSIDERING that recycling "all paper, glass, aluminum, and batteries", regardless of needs, value, other uses of these items, etc, as this resolution mandates, is not a safe, intelligent, or effective way to issue a resolution encouraging recycling, | ||
| + | |||
| + | REMAINING OPEN to a replacement which adopts a more effective set of recycling regimes | ||
| + | |||
| + | REPEALS "Mandatory Recycling" | ||
| + | |||
| + | Co-authored by [[Gruenberg]], [[Jey]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | :'''Votes For:''' 9,498 | ||
| + | :'''Votes Against:''' 3,457 | ||
| + | :'''Implemented:''' Tue Jan 10 2006 | ||
==Additional Materials== | ==Additional Materials== | ||
Revision as of 15:20, 10 January 2006
Overview
TG Campaign
Resolution Text
| Category: | Repeal | Resolution: | #13 | Proposed By: | Herconia |
|---|
Description: UN Resolution #13: MANDATORY RECYCLING (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.
Argument: OBSERVING the need for practical recycling legislation,
APPALLED by the failures of "Mandatory Recycling" to deliver suitable solutions, and its restriction on the ability of the UN to adopt more workable recycling policies,
REGRETTING the lack of clear guidelines, measurable goals and regulations in aforementioned resolution,
AWARE that not all member states have the industrial capacity for the scale of recycling mandated by this resolution, for which no allowance is made,
CONCERNED by the irresponsibility of forcing member states without the requisite facilities to engage in this level of recycling,
NOTING the distinct possibility of environmental damage caused by inappropriate recycling of materials by member states without developed, safe industrial facilities,
CONSIDERING that recycling "all paper, glass, aluminum, and batteries", regardless of needs, value, other uses of these items, etc, as this resolution mandates, is not a safe, intelligent, or effective way to issue a resolution encouraging recycling,
REMAINING OPEN to a replacement which adopts a more effective set of recycling regimes
REPEALS "Mandatory Recycling"
- Votes For: 9,498
- Votes Against: 3,457
- Implemented: Tue Jan 10 2006
