[DRAFT] Pollution Cap Act

[Friday Freshman]

Here is the barebones look at the act, clearly it will need some beautifying but I wanted to make sure there were mechanics to discuss.

Category: Environmental
Strength: Significant
Area of Effect: All Businesses

DEFINING the following terms:

1. Pollutants are contaminants that when introduced into the environment can cause adverse negative change to it.
2. Global Warming Potential (GWP) is the measure by which pollutants will be assessed and regulated. 1 Global Warming Potential point which will be the basis for pollution rights is equal to the emissions given off a single ton of Carbon Dioxide.

CREATING the Center for Pollution Control, to deal with the regulation of pollutants in the environment.

ASSIGNING the Center for Pollution Control with the duties of:

1. Keeping an up to date database of all pollutants in the known universe
2. Assigning each of the pollutants with a global warming potential, using Carbon Dioxide as a base with a GWP of 1, on a yearly basis.
3. Assigning each company and country with a certain amount of pollution rights as to best decrease emissions over a large time scale

SETTING FORTH the guidelines for regulation:

1. Each pollution right will be equal to 1 Global Warming Potential, in other words the emissions given out by one ton of Carbon Dioxide in a given year.
2. Each company will be assigned a certain amount of pollution rights for which they can pollute the surrounding area with whatever pollutants they can legally release into said area.
3. Pollution Rights will be assigned by basis of expected need as calculated by the Committee for Pollution Control for each company.
4. Each company has the ability to sell their excess pollution rights to another company whose source of pollution is within 150 miles of the first if they are able to decrease their pollution during a given year.
5. Any company can buy the pollution rights from another company so long as the sources of pollution are within 150 miles of each other
6. Any company found to be polluting more than their given pollution rights allow will be charged 5 times the market value of said pollution rights that would have been needed to cover said pollution. A companies number of pollution rights must be equal to or greater than the combined global warming potential let out into the environment.

[Defwa]

What are you planning on basing this cap on? And on what pollutants?

[Friday Freshman]

What are you planning on basing this cap on? And on what pollutants?

I'm going to be using the irl EPA regulations as a basis for it but I realize it will need some editing.

[Defwa]

What are you planning on basing this cap on? And on what pollutants?

I'm going to be using the irl EPA regulations as a basis for it but I realize it will need some editing.

Well there are a couple issues there but I'm generally... What's the word? Optimistic? That support may come. As long as we're careful about impacts on new businesses and developing nations.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: There are technical obstacles to a "cap and trade" proposal, which has been discussed in the past. There's the category (Environment or Free Trade?), it's exactly the kind of thing where we can anticipate some "creative" application of the rules, and tech/species/etc.wank in the WA is so rampant that virtually all environmental regulation is impossible anyway.

I am sceptical, but it will be interesting to see how you adapt the regulations of one large MEDC to the demands of thousands of diverse WA member nations in 40 minutes.

[Friday Freshman]

Barebones are up here.

[Lexicor]

How does this pose an extreme hazard to national populations? IRL: Carbon dioxyde is still far from being dangerous health wise to humans. Its historically been much higher than it is.

[Defwa]

How does this pose an extreme hazard to national populations? IRL: Carbon dioxyde is still far from being dangerous health wise to humans. Its historically been much higher than it is.

The negative health impacts of rising carbon dioxide levels are well documented and unquestionable. While some nations, like CDSP, have taken meticulous care of their environment and are lucky not to suffer extensively because of their neighbors, many nations have not taken such care and others still have no influence on the flow of pollutiom into their country.
The presense of a clear risk to people is clear.

To the updated draft, I would personally prefer to see these credits distributed to governments to be rationed as needed or left open to exchanges. Giving them to companies individually seems like it can take a lot of work and undermine national efforts to reduce pollution.

As it stands, it looks like its supposed to focus on atmospheric emissions but it seems to impact any harmful material. Im not sure how to convert a unit of carbon to a unit of uranium or an oil spill or pesticides.

The 150 mile limit doesnt seem necessary. We're already recognizing that the impacts of pollution cross borders. While concentration can have an additional impact, i feel like it really levels out in the end and should be up for national determination.

I'll probably be back with more later.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Before any other change is made there are two extremely broad areas that need to be narrowed down to create a manageable resolution:

1. "Pollutants" ought to be specified as chemical pollutants, otherwise the entire scheme is a failure;

2. The area of coverage of the resolution isn't the whole universe or even the entire biosphere (currently just "the environment"), but air or the atmosphere.

Making these two changes will go a long way toward not biting off more than you can chew.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Not all pollutants have an atmospheric effect akin to global warming. Sediment can be a serious pollutant, but nobody is going to say earthmoving operations by waterbodies is causing global warming. I don't see why it should be covered by this unwieldy system as atmospheric gas release is.

"Looks like you picked the most obvious hot-button topic and then settled on the single hardest way to approach it. That's going to bite you in the ass later. The issues that come to mind are that in some industries where the profit margin is very high, the demand is very high, or there is an otherwise significantly large availability of money, industries will simply pay the fines, as they will be making enough to compensate for it.

And you can't just say "well, we'll ramp up the fines for them," because that would become punitive and discriminatory between industries, which is unfair at best and potentially illegal, depending on how much CoCR can be viewed to apply to entities with personhood and the arbitrary categorizing of industry. Certainly, it will result in the WA appearing to pick favorites within industries if fines are lopsidedly applied.

"On the other hand increasing fine size will disproportionately effect smaller industries that have accidents or miscalculations, especially among burgeoning businesses and industries in developing nations. This could prevent developing nations from ever moving to a position of economic independence and stability.

"This also has issues with those economies were the state prevents private trade. How can companies sell their credits if they cannot sell anything?

"What about businesses that, having acquired the excess credits of other businesses due to their powerful spending ability, keep polluting? No change is made. Sounds like a sharp businessman would create a company to have credits allocated, then turn around and sell them for profit to industries that need them, instead of using them. Sounds like a big loophole for a scam, as there are no provisions for requirements for credits.

"No, I think this particular idea should be added to Chuckie's good bowl...he does love WA stationary, the filthy beast."

[Jarish Inyo]

Your Center for Pollution Control fines a company. Said company refuses to pay the fines. How does the Center for Pollution Control collect the fines?

[Lexicor]

Your Center for Pollution Control fines a company. Said company refuses to pay the fines. How does the Center for Pollution Control collect the fines?

Magical Compliance

[Jarish Inyo]

Only 'governments' have to magically comply. Not companies.

[Friday Freshman]

Only 'governments' have to magically comply. Not companies.

Dude really, It will be policed, the gnomes will come in and eat your company until you pay the goddamn fines, this is a non-problem.

[Jarish Inyo]

The gnomes would not come and eat a company until they pay up the fines. The gnomes only ensure that the government's laws are in compliance with WA resolutions. The gnomes have no authority over companies. This is a problem. You want to fine companies but have no way for your new committee to actually collect the fines should companies refuse to pay or acknowledge the committee has any authority over them.

[Qeno]

Here is the barebones look at the act, clearly it will need some beautifying but I wanted to make sure there were mechanics to discuss.

Category: Environmental
Strength: Significant
Area of Effect: All Businesses

DEFINING the following terms:

1. Pollutants are contaminants that when introduced into the environment can cause adverse negative change to it.
2. Global Warming Potential (GWP) is the measure by which pollutants will be assessed and regulated. 1 Global Warming Potential point which will be the basis for pollution rights is equal to the emissions given off a single ton of Carbon Dioxide.

CREATING the Center for Pollution Control, to deal with the regulation of pollutants in the environment.

ASSIGNING the Center for Pollution Control with the duties of:

1. Keeping an up to date database of all pollutants in the known universe
2. Assigning each of the pollutants with a global warming potential, using Carbon Dioxide as a base with a GWP of 1, on a yearly basis.
3. Assigning each company and country with a certain amount of pollution rights as to best decrease emissions over a large time scale

SETTING FORTH the guidelines for regulation:

1. Each pollution right will be equal to 1 Global Warming Potential, in other words the emissions given out by one ton of Carbon Dioxide in a given year.
2. Each company will be assigned a certain amount of pollution rights for which they can pollute the surrounding area with whatever pollutants they can legally release into said area.
3. Pollution Rights will be assigned by basis of expected need as calculated by the Committee for Pollution Control for each company.
4. Each company has the ability to sell their excess pollution rights to another company whose source of pollution is within 150 miles of the first if they are able to decrease their pollution during a given year.
5. Any company can buy the pollution rights from another company so long as the sources of pollution are within 150 miles of each other
6. Any company found to be polluting more than their given pollution rights allow will be charged 5 times the market value of said pollution rights that would have been needed to cover said pollution. A companies number of pollution rights must be equal to or greater than the combined global warming potential let out into the environment.

[*] Global Warming Potential (GWP) is the measure by which pollutants will be assessed and regulated. 1 Global Warming Potential point which will be the basis for pollution rights is equal to the emissions given off a single ton of Carbon Dioxide.

May I be one of those people who point out that plants need carbon dioxide to produce food and one of the bigger producers of such 'pollutants' is not a company or series of companies but could be referred to as a volcano. Quite frankly volcanoes don't care about laws it'll just explode as it pleases and kills as many people it can. If I could vote on this proposal I would say No because of how inane it is to regulate the way carbon dioxide is produced and one last argument is our breath has carbon dioxide in it.

Assuming someone wants proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

[Chester Pearson]

Not only is this a useless committee, I would really like to know about this:

Each pollution right will be equal to 1 Global Warming Potential, in other words the emissions given out by one ton of Carbon Dioxide in a given year.

You are not actually going to put a clause worded like that in are you?

[Normlpeople]

OOC: You are going to run into the same issues as the IRL versions of cap & trade: Credit selling will make it insignificant, and any costs associated will, as always, be passed down to the consumer, thereby not punishing the companies in any way.

IC: "There is no possible way we would support something like this. Ambassador Bell stole my thunder as to the reasons why, but they are still very valid. In the end, the consumers will eat the costs, not the companies, and the last thing we need in the WA is more economy and job killing legislation, and more reason for companies to relocate to non member nations."