[Demosthenes]

- Train transit system

I'm interested, let's hear it...

[Zagadka]

This is killing several birds with one stone. It has three tiers.

The primary reason is to get goods and services (agriculture, mining, etc etc) to market or the ports much more efficiently than putting trucks on the road. This is heavy rail.

Secondary, the passenger system connects the major cities and regions. This is medium rail, similar to Amtrak.

Finally, it is an intra-city commuter train. This connects to a center depot in every city, where passengers can get off the inter-city train and onto a local train, or vice versa.

This would eliminate the need for a large number of vehicles and pollution. It also works economically.

Faster goods, less congestion, simple travel. Initial financial costs are moderately high, but fares and savings in buying vehicles and keeping up roads damaged by heavy trucks.

The types of trains I'm talking about are powered by a third rail or other standard system. We don't have the money to put in high-tech maglev bullet trains, but we can greatly help ourselves.

[Figlio di Moros]

This is killing several birds with one stone. It has three tiers.

The primary reason is to get goods and services (agriculture, mining, etc etc) to market or the ports much more efficiently than putting trucks on the road. This is heavy rail.

Secondary, the passenger system connects the major cities and regions. This is medium rail, similar to Amtrak.

Finally, it is an intra-city commuter train. This connects to a centre depot in every city, where passengers can get off the inter-city train and onto a local train, or vice versa.

This would eliminate the need for a large number of vehicles and pollution. It also works economically.

Faster goods, less congestion, simple travel. Initial financial costs are moderately high, but fares and savings in buying vehicles and keeping up roads damaged by heavy trucks.

The types of trains I'm talking about are powered by a third rail or other standard system. We don't have the money to put in high-tech maglev bullet trains, but we can greatly help ourselves.

Maglev might actually be a decent investment for freight transfer; in the cities, though, I'd suggest improving the bus system, or atleast where trainlines leave gaps. A two-tiered, british-style bus oughta work wonders.

[Dr House]

I like this.

Just one thing, though...

We don't have the money to put in high-tech maglev bullet trains

How extensive is our rail network already? The only significant additional cost to setting up a maglev system is the cost of laying down the tracks, which means if we have to lay down any additional tracks we might as well lay down maglev tracks rather than conventional tracks. Maglev bullet trains can be retrofitted to carry freight.

Regarding Zag's other proposals:

- Restrictions on commercial fishing

Unacceptable. As it is the island is barely developed, and it has dangerously few sources of external revenue, despite our high oil output. We may be willing to reconsider our position once Pofo has an abundance of high-value industries to rely on for income, but for now we can't support this proposal.

- Funding of geothermal energy

This on the other hand is a good idea, in my opinion.

[Zagadka]

Unacceptable. As it is the island is barely developed, and it has dangerously few sources of external revenue, despite our high oil output. We may be willing to reconsider our position once Pofo has an abundance of high-value industries to rely on for income, but for now we can't support this proposal.

Two points.

One, I'm aiming for sustainable development. Sustainability does not mean hands-off; quite the opposite, the active word is development. It is impossible to develop if we cause destruction. My "limits" would be rather liberal, but we have to make sure that the fish remain abundant.

Two, there would be an international shitstorm. Many nations rely on fishing the north Atlantic. If we threatened their vital industry, they would be rather displeased.

[Dr House]

I would still find it more productive to tax the activity rather than outright limit it, and then use the funds for infrastructure projects.

[Demosthenes]

One, I'm aiming for sustainable development. Sustainability does not mean hands-off; quite the opposite, the active word is development. It is impossible to develop if we cause destruction. My "limits" would be rather liberal, but we have to make sure that the fish remain abundant.

So perhaps this is something we could label and/or procede with as some type of conservationism? I think one of the issues facing the environmental movement in general is that it doesn't embrace conservation quite visibly enough for certain segments of the population and as a result it comes off as academic quackery to certain practical hands-on types. Rather than bombastically claiming that overfishing will destroy the earth, making a more down-to-earth, conservationism claim like: "Overfishing directly affects PoFo in these ways 1) X, 2) XX...", is much more likely to reach the demographic who will be most affected by the laws.

I'll admit, at face value I'm not as supportive on this particular issue, but I'm more than willing to consider your thoughts and see if there is wiggle room.

As for the other two, I think I'm mostly in support of these items. I really like the idea of rail as a further way of limiting our dependance on oil in general. The other benefits are secondary in my personal opinion. Geothermal only makes sense in light of concern as well. It's even possible, in time, that if we can properly harness our vast geothermal potential, we could run the rail system on it.

[Dr House]

While it is important I don't really think it's an urgent matter for us to be oil-independent Demos, because we are not the US. We're a net oil exporter to the tune of 2 million barrels a day.

Of course the less oil we consume the more we can export, and the more we can do domestically with the funds, so like a smart drug dealer we should try not to dip into our stash.

[Demosthenes]

While it is important I don't really think it's an urgent matter for us to be oil-independent Demos, because we are not the US. We're a net oil exporter to the tune of 2 million barrels a day.

Of course the less oil we consume the more we can export, and the more we can do domestically with the funds, so like a smart drug dealer we should try not to dip into our stash.

I realize this, my point is too keep it that way. We don't want to become trapped like Iran is, forced to use oil domestically in order to limit our oil output in order to further stabilize the world oil market. (And by stabilize, of course I mean, keep the oil market favoring certain western oil oligarchs). Threatened at every opportunity for invasion if we attempt to build nuclear plants and such.

I think oil independence is paramount, but that really doesn't matter to the discussion at hand, the only thing that matters is that- for whatever reason, we can piece something together that satisfies most of us.

[Dr House]

Off-topic: Did your picking a Chavez avatar have something to do with you finding out the Republic of Pofo is a petrostate?

[Zagadka]

So perhaps this is something we could label and/or procede with as some type of conservationism?

I would actually take the reverse approach. As an example, the logging industry. Clear-cut logging nets a high amount of profit, but you can only do it once. More friendly versions of logging leave the forest developing in perpetuity. This is about keeping an abundant supply of fish for ourselves, our children, and other North Atlantic nations. I mean, fish aren't a tourist industry.

The best real-world example is from states like Norway. Norway is *heavily* dependent on commercial fishing, but use the laws of conservation and still pull a good profit. Other examples are things like building dams on salmon run streams; the dam may bring its own positives, but it destroys an entire industry.


Edit

I take exception to the phrase, "Zagadka's Legislative Attempts"... they are initiatives, and suggested ones at that. "Attempts" sounds demeaning.

[Demosthenes]

I would actually take the reverse approach. As an example, the logging industry. Clear-cut logging nets a high amount of profit, but you can only do it once. More friendly versions of logging leave the forest developing in perpetuity. This is about keeping an abundant supply of fish for ourselves, our children, and other North Atlantic nations. I mean, fish aren't a tourist industry.

Isn't that sort of the definition of conservation? I don't really understand what you're trying to say is the reverse of my original statement. Perhaps we are simply misunderstanding one another, because as far as I can your example seems to support what I thought would be reasonable in the first place.

The best real-world example is from states like Norway. Norway is *heavily* dependent on commercial fishing, but use the laws of conservation and still pull a good profit. Other examples are things like building dams on salmon run streams; the dam may bring its own positives, but it destroys an entire industry.

Well...I'm not sure about the Dam, part of it, but the bit about Norway seems to be all I was talking about. I think perhaps you think I was meaning something else. I'm not sure. But anyway, we shouldn't get bogged down in the details at this point. I suggest putting forth a rough draft of your bill with as many specifics as you can, and let us have a closer look at what you propose from there.

So far, other than some minor reservations about the definition of conservation... , It looks like something I'd personally support.

[Figlio di Moros]

Concerning fishing, aren't there more ways to increase the supply of fish besides restricting amounts to be taken? Perhaps artificial breeding grounds?

Dr. House, nations own 200 miles of sea off their coast; considering how much of the north atlantic that take up, which is important to other northern European nations, have we mentioned the idea that Ryan Thompson had loaned our waters to foreign nations, limiting domestic fishermen and reducing our stock?

[Zagadka]

Concerning fishing, aren't there more ways to increase the supply of fish besides restricting amounts to be taken? Perhaps artificial breeding grounds?

Yes, fish farms are viable, and they wouldn't count towards any quota system.