International Biodiversity Conservation Aid Act

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How would the process of convincing a foreign gov't who does not prioritize such conservation nor allows/cooperates with NGOs at present, to change such policies and pursue a better approach? Does that have to go through normal diplomatic channels? Can the IBCB play a roll in that process and if so, what does it look like?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How would the process of convincing a foreign gov't who does not prioritize such conservation nor allows/cooperates with NGOs at present, to change such policies and pursue a better approach? Does that have to go through normal diplomatic channels? Can the IBCB play a roll in that process and if so, what does it look like?

Well sorry to hijack this but it can go through several different channels. Either face to face diplomacy with our team, or through the various UN groups if they've signed any treaties. As long as the ICBC falls under the wider branch of the office of external affairs they should be able to reach deals with other nations.

The issues with biodiversity came into it when you have a country like the Democratic republic of congo because the central government give approval to these projects when in fact they only have control of about 10% of the country

I would be correct to assume that any deals would have to achieve standard approval process, that is they cannot act independently from the wider foreign policy of the country?

The reason I bring it up is because a good number of places either like the Congo where the country is in turmoil or in places where the gov't is openly hostile or indifferent either because the gov't is bought by companies who have a vested interest in mining or extraction to name one example, or just generally prioritize economic growth would pose a significant impediment to progress and many of these countries would likely have significant problems of habitat destruction, pollution and so forth.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think the debt incentive is probably the best one available to motivate cooperation, and I like that we have some mechanism for that.

However, I must express some degree of caution because it could encourage reckless borrowing in the future on the assumption that said debt will be cancelled by simply joining this effort. I think some limiting mechanism, maybe limiting it to just already accrued debt or some percentage of their total debts owed to Atlasia, or maybe a total cap limit per country might in some way reduce this downside potential.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think the debt incentive is probably the best one available to motivate cooperation, and I like that we have some mechanism for that.

However, I must express some degree of caution because it could encourage reckless borrowing in the future on the assumption that said debt will be cancelled by simply joining this effort. I think some limiting mechanism, maybe limiting it to just already accrued debt or some percentage of their total debts owed to Atlasia, or maybe a total cap limit per country might in some way reduce this downside potential.

It's not designed to apply to all debts or all countries-for example we wouldn't do it with france or the uk since both countries have the resources to do it, and don't need aid.

It's designed to make developing countries actually act-because a lot of people sneer saying 'these developed countries don't care about the environment'

Who the hell said anything about France and Britain. I am talking about banana republics and Zimbabwe. Countries with the least councern and most desire to take advantage of such a mechanism. I applauded the addition of this mechanism, but it comes with its own risks and if we don't limit their ability to wipe out debts, they will load up on debts spending years worth in a single year before participating in this program, hence my point.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think the debt incentive is probably the best one available to motivate cooperation, and I like that we have some mechanism for that.

However, I must express some degree of caution because it could encourage reckless borrowing in the future on the assumption that said debt will be cancelled by simply joining this effort. I think some limiting mechanism, maybe limiting it to just already accrued debt or some percentage of their total debts owed to Atlasia, or maybe a total cap limit per country might in some way reduce this downside potential.

It's not designed to apply to all debts or all countries-for example we wouldn't do it with france or the uk since both countries have the resources to do it, and don't need aid.

It's designed to make developing countries actually act-because a lot of people sneer saying 'these developed countries don't care about the environment'

Who the hell said anything about France and Britain. I am talking about banana republics and Zimbabwe. Countries with the least councern and most desire to take advantage of such a mechanism. I applauded the addition of this mechanism, but it comes with its own risks and if we don't limit their ability to wipe out debts, they will load up on debts spending years worth in a single year before participating in this program, hence my point.

Okay, can we stop this idiotic idea that African and latin American countries don't care about biodiversity. Why do people seem to purport this myth that they're hell bent on environmental destruction?

They don't have the least concern for biodiversity-that honour goes to the countries that are preparing to begin oil drilling in the arctic, or the country that spilled an entire oil rig on the gulf of mexico,

The programs aren't designed to wipe out debts-all the schemes done in the last 5 years have been on a really really small scale.

I'll agree to a cap, but I don't want it to basically reduce the fact that debt for conservation swaps can be effective

But most everyone of those counties would acknowledge environmental concerns and work to mitigate the problem or seek to prevent it. We can argue over how this is occuring and you are right, there have been lapses, but there is a far greater society concern for the environment in welathy, democratic counties then in dictatorial, impoverised ones.

For the third time, I think debt swaps are going to be an effective tool, my point once again is that if you aren't careful, it will be taken advantage of at our expense, for not environmental gain.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think the debt incentive is probably the best one available to motivate cooperation, and I like that we have some mechanism for that.

However, I must express some degree of caution because it could encourage reckless borrowing in the future on the assumption that said debt will be cancelled by simply joining this effort. I think some limiting mechanism, maybe limiting it to just already accrued debt or some percentage of their total debts owed to Atlasia, or maybe a total cap limit per country might in some way reduce this downside potential.

It's not designed to apply to all debts or all countries-for example we wouldn't do it with france or the uk since both countries have the resources to do it, and don't need aid.

It's designed to make developing countries actually act-because a lot of people sneer saying 'these developed countries don't care about the environment'

Who the hell said anything about France and Britain. I am talking about banana republics and Zimbabwe. Countries with the least councern and most desire to take advantage of such a mechanism. I applauded the addition of this mechanism, but it comes with its own risks and if we don't limit their ability to wipe out debts, they will load up on debts spending years worth in a single year before participating in this program, hence my point.

Okay, can we stop this idiotic idea that African and latin American countries don't care about biodiversity. Why do people seem to purport this myth that they're hell bent on environmental destruction?

They don't have the least concern for biodiversity-that honour goes to the countries that are preparing to begin oil drilling in the arctic, or the country that spilled an entire oil rig on the gulf of mexico,

The programs aren't designed to wipe out debts-all the schemes done in the last 5 years have been on a really really small scale.

I'll agree to a cap, but I don't want it to basically reduce the fact that debt for conservation swaps can be effective

But most everyone of those counties would acknowledge environmental concerns and work to mitigate the problem or seek to prevent it. We can argue over how this is occuring and you are right, there have been lapses, but there is a far greater society concern for the environment in welathy, democratic counties then in dictatorial, impoverised ones.

For the third time, I think debt swaps are going to be an effective tool, my point once again is that if you aren't careful, it will be taken advantage of at our expense, for not environmental gain.

But the debt swaps are always under our control-we agree how much money is going to be swapped, as I wrote into the bill we only let the swap happen if the criteria is reached and they actually meet conservation targets. We're not giving them a blank state, and we have the controls. How are we going to be taken for a ride when we have full control over the process?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a broad oversimplification, look at India and it's widespread pollution of the ganges, and compare it with Cuba

The IBCB will be in control of regulating this though and forming the argeements. Unless, each agreement is brought before the Senate individually, then my concern, which is a mass runup in debt prior to making such a deal will only be met with an appropriate standard provided it is made by the agency in its internal guidelines. I think the bill should include language requiring a standard to be formed, if not directly stating said standard, limiting the ability of countries to engage in these irresponsbile practices prior to engagement with the IBCB on a debt swap.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The wording could be tighter, but the general idea is the priority here.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am hessitant to object but I don't feel I can vote for this unless this matter regarding the debt increase issue is dealt with in some ways. We are trusted to protect our money and since this debts owed to us, we have a responsibility as the guardians of the purse to not leave this simply to the whims of arbitrary administrative fiat.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

RELUC....


Fooled ya.

NAY

Like I said, I support this but I cannot sign of on a system with such a glaring exploit present. We should safe guard our people's money and thus take measures as the guardians of the purples to prevent abuse of this potential from occuring and not leave it up to the executive branch who may or may not priotize it and if they do, it may be on a arbtirary basis.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

RELUC....


Fooled ya.

NAY

Like I said, I support this but I cannot sign of on a system with such a glaring exploit present. We should safe guard our people's money and thus take measures as the guardians of the people's purse to prevent abuse of this potential from occuring and not leave it up to the executive branch who may or may not priotize it and if they do, it may be on a arbtirary basis

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Voting Nay twice? If anything that's an enthusiastic nay

I actually really do like the objective here, so I am not really enthusiastic about it. This was the precise situation that I would vote reluctantly against a bill, because I like the objective I just disagree with how it is done or I see a problem but the solution present is worse than the status quo (like a certain bill last August that led to this practice being lampooned).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Wouldn't it have become law automatically by now?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Is it 7 or 10 days after passing?

Pretty sure it is seven, but I could be wrong on that.