Notes on our (totally uncorrupt) mini UN debate

So the time has come to discuss our geography debate which we held last week and I think in overall fairness we did very well even though some of the funding was clearly bias! I had to discuss the sustainability of South Korea and I found out that country to my own beliefs they are a very sustainable nation even though they are a rapidly developing nation. They have many policies in place which mean that they are becoming very sustainable will the country undergoes massive changes to their structure and the form of their economy. There a shining beacon to the world and many countries should make not of their example as they are doing very for themselves. They are set to become one of the world’s leading designers and producers of hydrogen fuel cells which will have to become the fuel in the future no matter what America has to say. They are designing many ways in which to make the world greener but they desperately need capital as many of the so called ‘developed nations’ are ignoring them as they don’t want to admit to their own mistakes which they have may and own up to the fact that this small countries ideas are the way forward. The debate itself was very well structured but I wish there were more structured comments like the ones a certain Andrew White made but nobody understood! The countries involved where from a vast plethora of places and I think some where poorly chosen as there was little information on what their policies on sustainable development was if they even had any. This made it difficult to create decent arguments as many people had little to compose their arguments with and was hampered by some people’s difficulty to talk in front of a large amount of people which held a lot of the debating back which was very annoying. The ideas presented were of very good standard however and the creative use of facts to expand some of the more unfortunately thin ideas by some groups was a very good decision. I do however totally disagree with the distribution of the funding to the countries as some of them were totally undeserving of the money. The main culprit of this was the United States of America which received 4 billion dollars of funding and even though they could only get it if they raised and equivalent amount I believe 4 million would have been too much. This is country dead set against sustainable development and many of their leading figures proudly display this fact when they talk to the globe. They have never wanted to try and help the world and would rather see it tipped into oblivion than raise themselves to do anything about their situation. This is my conclusion to this debate I am sorry for the rant but in blog you have to speak your feelings and this is my feelings.