Orange Leaves - a Progressive statement on our environment

[Myroria]

Recently, several citizens have raised concerns about the Progressive Party and its stance on the environment. As Spokesperson of the Progressive Party of Taijitu, I would like to have a discussion among party members and the general public about these concerns.

I'd like to begin by discussing the Progressive Party and its stance on animal experimentation. As was plainly obvious from the last legislative session, there was a disagreement between myself and my fellow party member, McMasterdonia, on the issue of animal experimentation. Disagreements between party members are certainly not uncommon, and despite my self-admitted "party whip" attitudes at times, I'm glad there is such diversity in our party. I'd like to talk about my own feelings on this topic and invite participation from others.

Our distinguished opponents, the Green Party, take a hard-line stance against animal experimentation. While I agree that on occasion, animals in testing situations feel pain, and I agree that this is tragic, the benefits of animal experimentation far outweigh its downsides. Animal experimentation has been responsible for nearly every medical advance of the 20th and 21st centuries: kidney dialysis, HIV drug testing, or the polio vaccine just to name a few. It is indeed tragic that some animals feel pain in animal testing, but these are the minority and their suffering leads to a far greater good.

Secondly - the Progressive Party is, above all, sensible. We support environmental regulations and environmental protection laws - so long as they are based in science and reality. There is quite frankly no use for laws that would hurt jobs and industry, or raise taxes, because the very idea of environmental laws is appealing or sentimental. Instead, acts restricting industry and the economy should be enacted because they work, and because they serve the greater good. Sentimentality, or attachments to any idea in spite of evidence of their low success rate, is antithetical to the very principles of the Progressive Party - a party based on reason.

The environment is an extremely important issue to the Progressive Party, but one must remember that moderation and caution is the rule. We cannot pass laws haphazardly that might hurt jobs or the economy out of a sentiment that they might work in protecting the environment - we must only pass laws that we know will work to both better the environmental situation in Taijitu Founder and keep the people from paying out the nose for programs that have little real, proven benefit. If this seems like an appropriate plan to you, the voter - one that guarantees both the livelihoods of our citizens and the lives of our biota - vote Progressive in the July elections.

Myroria
Spokesperson of the Progressive Party of Taijitu

[Terran]

Senator Myroria,

I'd like to thank you for taking the time to clarify the Progressive Party's stance on the environment and animal rights. I know I speak for everyone when I say that this is an important issue, perhaps more so than it has been in the past. Thanks for bringing this further into the public discourse, you have my gratitude.

Now, to get down to business (and since you asked for public discussion, I trust this is okay?) I'd like to draw the attention to the three largest budgetary allocations for Taijitu Founder. They are:

• Education: $3,065,140,618,317.86 (31%)
• Social Welfare: $1,779,759,068,700.69 (18%)
• Healthcare: $1,285,381,549,617.17 (13%)

As you can see, the education department currently receives the largest amount of funding from the Taijituan taxpayer, nearly doubling the amounts funded into Social Welfare, and more than doubling the amount allocated for Healthcare. Our crime rate is low, thanks to this policy of over-funding, and a strong support for our nation's social justice programs. However it's important to point out that of the over $9 Trillion Tai budget, only 1% of that is given to the Environment and Wildlife Preservation. So, I ask you: what constitutes reasonable? Is the continued rejection of nearly all environmental issues placed before the Progressive senate considered to be rational? Records clearly show via the Greenthumb Society that the ProP has the worst environmental record of either party for standing senators and the worst party of prior senates. In two out of the three categories, your party has scored at minimum a negative two and at worse, a negative four for the overall environment. You get marginal good marks for the protection of animals despite your recent support of the experimentation issue.

The Progressive Party does not have the interests of the environment in mind in any manner, except when the personal convictions of it's members come into play, which is often times over ruled by majority consensus (see recent issue). The Progressive stance on the environment was made today, with Mr. Myroria's stance. It is obvious that they intend to continue with the current agenda of deforestation, exploitation and destruction of the environment and wildlife just to see the GDP go up a few more Tais. Our economy is given a rating by international observers as Strong. Our spending is high in many areas, and with crime at one of it's lowest levels, would it indeed be irrational or extreme to raise funding for environmental issues and concerns from 1% ($98 Billion) to 5% ($152 Billion) of our budget? Would that truly represent a drastic or radical shift from common sense, eco-friendly economics? Or rather, does it represent a new approach to the economy that is different from the current Progressive Party hegemony on our current methodology?

Something tells me it's the latter, and that has frightened the ProP into action. Rightfully so.

It is the duty of all of us, to ensure that the rights and treasures of the environment and the wildlife which it supports, are protected from elements that seek to try the "balanced" option. When you genetically enhance animals, plants or creatures, you upset the delicate ecosystem in which we inhabit. There is no rational, reasonable or sensible constraint to place upon this, as studies show that by the very existence of such things, it is already doing damage. Not to mention the adverse health effects of genetically modified foods! Likewise, studies have already shown that drugs which remain in formula stages and do not engage in or engage in very limited experimentation show a better success rate with less side effects and complications among human consumers. This tells us that supporting such laws that make it easier for companies and industries to cut corners to increase the bottom lines on their budgets, is not only hurting our environmental resources, but is also affecting the citizens of the nation. Something which the ProP should be gravely concerned.

In summation, I put to the people of this region, and of Taijitu Founder, that the Progressive Party is not a party which cares at all about the environment. It is not a party that concerns itself with ensuring that our natural resources are responsibly developed in a mature, and effective way that doesn't undermine our environment. I do not make this claim through rhetoric, speeches, or opinion. i base this off independently verified fact, and statistics which clearly show this to be the case. I trust in the ability of the voters to clearly see the differences in responsible environmentalism, and dangerous disregard for the world in which we live.

Thank you for your time, and best of luck to all those running for Senate, and Delegate.

[Eluvatar]

* Eluvatar puts on Professor Aelar Eneibari hat.

Examining some relevant statistics really puts our environmental situation in perspective. Back in the homeland, the WA reports an alarming negative 463.25, ah, pounds of wildlife less pounds of concrete per square mile. In Myroria the situation is even worse, at negative 2963 pounds per square mile. Here in Taijitu Founder, the WA reports a reasonable negative 17.5 pounds. A bit the median of 33 pounds, but not too bad. It's far closer to the 107 pounds score of the Terran Union or the 163 pound score of Gullivania than to Eluvatar's dismal score. Indeed, it's actually closer to Zemnaya Svoboda's impressive positive 323.25 pounds than to that Eluvataran score.

I would of course welcome sensible environmental reforms, but at this time our economy being a mere "Strong" (well below most of the nations I just surveyed) worries me slightly more. That said, I would not support a decision which would improve our economy at the expense of our environment; in such a case I would prefer no change at all.

If I might raise a suggestion, perhaps a commission could be formed, which would consult such experts as [nation]Professor Hell[/nation] and resources such as the newspaper archive formerly maintained by Ballotonia to devise an environmental strategy (or even an overall strategy) to recommend to us.

[Delfos]

No progress at expense of the environment and society.