This resolution is open for voting until February 19.

As per constitutional requirement, I'll cast my vote in favour of the majority view as expressed on this poll.

Please feel free to state your views on this resolution by replying to this poll.

--
Description: For years the forest of numerous nations have been abused and destroyed for profit. In many nations, this is reaching critical leavels, almost to the point where all the forests are gone. If we destroy the forests now, they're gone. Forever. My reasons for this proposal are twofold:

1. Enviromental Concerns
The destruction of the rainforest has a major destructive effect on the enviroment. Countless spieces of plant and animal will be destroyed if deforestation continues at the rate that it is currently. These animals would be dead, and thier would be no way of resurecting them, short of cloning, which rases an entirly diferent moral issue. The simple fact is that the destruction of rainforest is simply pointless destruction as thier is no way to make the forests renewable without seriously cutting the money that they make, which is the reason for thier destruction anyway! The mindless destroying of a valuable national resorce will, in the long run, achieve nothing.

2. Thoughts of the future
By destroying the forests today, there is no way that they will produce money in the future, either through turism or logging. People don't recognise that, while forests make more money more quickly when felled on the mass scale, in the long run, monetarily the same amount of money could be produced by carefully felling a section of forest, then helping it regrow. This way, the woods produced would be more valuable on the international market due to the decreased availability of the timber. Over a longer amount of time, the money produced would, in fact, outstrip the money made by the wanton destruction. The forest would, with help, renew its self and go on making money. As and added bonus, turism would increase.

Solution
While decreasing the would chipping industry would, in the short term, over hundreds of years the over all efects on the enviroment would realy save the world from the rampart destruction of forest that it has fallen into a cycle of.

I'd just like to point out that not only did this person use the word 'their' instead of 'there', but they spelled it wrong....several times

and would instead of wood. nor can they spell tourism. I mean, is it really so hard to run something through a quick spell check?

and the solution seems to be missing a part...it doesn't read right

This is an example of why their should be some kind of "proof reader" mechansim.

I understand why it happens - Many people at NS do not speak English as a first language, and thus, you get some well intentioned but poorly worded proposals. Can't fault them for trying. But it would be nice if there was a group of UN resolution volunteers that you had to submit a proposal to, who could offer suggestions with respect to wording and weaknesses in proposals.

Having said that, this particular proposal is missing something. I don't exactly know where it is going, and hence, likely would vote against it.

the proposal never clearly states what it's going to do

You see this a lot, the submitter spends a lot of time on describing the problem. Followed up with a little if any thought on the solution, a whole ten seconds describing the solution and zero thought given to possible implications from enacting the "solution".

Which is exactly why I am against it. :blink:

The problem is there is no resolution just a problem. Don't cut the forests down period. Eventhough this may be a problem the solution is too vague would therefore lack any teeth. Although the problem may be real we ned to vote against it.

Isn't that what places like Centre Park's is for? - Conserving greenery I mean...

Bweezy raises an intersting point about proof readers, although so does Canadiiya about spell checkers. I mean, submitting it to other Nations within a region or discussion within a forum could eliminate a lot of problems. It would also mean extra time and brain power spent on the solution and possible repercussions, leading to a slicker, leaner, more refined proposal.

Thoughts of the future: Isn't that why sustainable forests were brought in..?
I'm also inclinded to agree with most other people. How is the solution to be put into action? Especially if you take how it's written literally. :mellow:

I don't usually speak up on these things but this issue hits too close to home to keep my mouth shut. Whoever drafted this issue up clearly has no knowledge of forestry or ecology. First off I assume the would chipping industry to be a remark to pulp and lumber production, the rain forest isn't being choped down to produce 2x4's. It's being cut down to produce grazing and cropland, which in turn the poor forest soils can't sustain for more than a couple years under the poor management down there which leads to the cutting of more rainforest to get more agricultural lands that can't be suported for very long. Most of that wood from the trees is simply being pilled and burned. Placing controls on forestry companies isn't going to solve the rainforest problems.

The forestry companies don't want to put themselves out of work. And what they do take they replant because they want something to harvest in another 20 years. In fact, forest environments require disturbance, though preferably fire. They evolved under fire, which we in turn took away so we could live in them. The closest thing we can do to simulate that is log, it's not perfect but prescribed fire isn't really socially acceptable right now. I'm actually a wildland ecologist in real life, and no I don't work for a forestry company ^_^

So yeah, in summary my vote is no :D Some first post eh?

Funny thing is, as poorly written as this one is, it looks like it'll pass in a landslide.

:wacko:

Apprently so...
;)

I'm all for conservation even though it would hurt our wood shipping industry, but everyone makes a valid point - its a feel good vote that lacks teeth or direction. Just my two cents

I reckon if it does, by some miracle, get passed or even approved (I've not been paying much attention to the UN resolutions/proposals as work has been fierce and I can't concentrate properly), there will probably been countless ammendments to in defining how to implement the solution.
I'll probably bide my time and wait until the 11th hour before voting (or not).

The UN resolution "Save the forests of the World" was passed, 12460 votes to 7244, and implemented in all UN member nations. In Canada, we voted 17-4 AGAINST the resolution. I cast all 60 of the delegate votes in accordance with the results of the off-site vote.

21 Votes for a UN poll was a new record. Thanks to all who took the time to vote.