[DRAFT] Repeal "Uranium Mining Standards Act"

[Schutzenphalia and West Ruhntuhnkuhnland]

Uranium Mining Standards Act
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: Uranium Mining
Proposed by: Abacathea

Description: The World Assembly, noting its consistent efforts at bettering the environment for future and current generations;

Observing that the uranium mining industry plays a pivotal role in the economies of many member nations;

Concerned that whilst this industry is indeed of great importance to many member nations, this is often to ecological detriment;

Determined to ensure the least possible impact on the services this industry provides and the revenue it generates;

However refusing to allow this to take precedent over the often severe impact made on the landscape and environment;

Hereby;

i: Mandates that nations allowing uranium mining within their territory conduct an annual audit of each operational mine to ensure that basic radiation precautions are in place and being utilized.

ii: Charges all national governance with the responsibility of assessing operational mines for any issues relating to waste product disposal, radiation containment and structural integrity.

iii: Further requires all nations to conduct a survey on surrounding flora and fauna at potential mine sites and currently operational mine sites to ensure that the construction and resultant operation of the mine will not endanger nor has endangered any species in the general vicinity.

iv: Instructs nations who discover flora or fauna indigenous solely to the potential mine site to make documented efforts to relocate either the mine, or the relevant species to ensure that the species suffer as little impact as possible.

iv(a): In relation to mandate iv; should a nation be required to relocate a species they are required to coordinate these efforts with the Protection of Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) to ensure maximum efforts made at preservation.

v: Charges all national governments with assessing the areas directly around mining operations currently in progress and annually thereafter on all active mines, to ensure that no significant contamination of water supplies or soil has occurred and take all possible measures to treat and prevent the further spread of contamination if such is discovered.

vi: Re-establishes the Nuclear Energy Safety Commission (NESC) with the provision to assist nations with the testing requirements under this act should they require it.

vii: Directs the Nuclear Energy Safety Commission (NESC) to conduct these tests on behalf of nations and to give government mandates based off of these findings.

viii: Makes provision for nations to apply to the WA General Fund on the provision that they can show verified needs for assistance in order to conform to directives given by the Nuclear Energy Safety Commission (NESC) or by their own self audits.

ix: Empowers the General Accounting Office (GAO) to conduct any and all essential financial checks required to verify a nations economic requirements to conform to this act and to approve or deny funds appropriately.

Votes For: 6,868
Votes Against: 4,126

Implemented Sat Sep 14 2013

[WAR263 on NS] [WAR263 on NSwiki] [Official Debate Topic]

Argument: The World Assembly,

Noting that World Assembly Resolution #263, “Uranium Mining Standards Act”, fails to identify any distinctly international component to the impact of uranium mining,

Arguing that economic activity without any demonstrated international impact can be adequately addressed by regulation at the national level,

Rejecting the need for specific international workplace safety legislation targeted at uranium mining given that the World Assembly has already passed Resolution #7, “Workplace Safety Standards Act”,

Further rejecting the need for specific international endangered species legislation targeted at uranium mining given that the World Assembly has already passed Resolution #66, “Endangered Species Protection”,

Yet further rejecting the need for specific international water contamination legislation targeted at uranium mining given that the World Assembly has already passed Resolution #107, “Clean Water Act”,

Deeply concerned that the power of the Nuclear Energy Safety Commission to give “government mandates”, granted by Resolution #263, is totally unchecked by any democratic input or oversight, or ability of nations to appeal such mandates,

Considering that World Assembly Resolution #357, “Promotion of Clean Energy”, has identified nuclear energy as a form of “clean energy”,

Asserting that deliberately targeting the uranium mining industry, the chief source of fuel for nuclear energy, with burdensome and unnecessary legislation is likely to curb the potential to fully employ nuclear energy and thereby produce an overall net negative environmental impact through a return to polluting fossil fuel industries,

Unconvinced that Resolution #263 advances any interest of overall international benefit, and,

Assured that repealing Resolution #263 will not allow any retreat on worker safety, endangered species protection, or water safety,

Has decided:

World Assembly Resolution #263, “Uranium Mining Standards Act”, is hereby repealed.

[Schutzenphalia and West Ruhntuhnkuhnland]

OOC: Seeing as the last thread was a write-off, let's try something new.

IC follows.

"We are presenting a draft repeal for comment and question.

"Our position is not really that this legislation does any particular active harm to our own nation, given the limited uranium mining activity in our own territory, although the sweeping powers - we suspect inadvertently - granted to the NESC are certainly troubling. But it is certainly a source of indirect harm for nations such as our own that are net importers of uranium ore for nuclear power to face higher prices, discouraging our investment in such clean energy and instead pushing us back towards oil and gas.

"Additionally, Resolution #263 doesn't achieve any particular gain that was not already a part of international law in some cases years before its passage."

~ Katinka von Ausserkundszell
Second Deputy Under-Secretary to the Foreign and Colonial Office

[Araraukar]

OOC: Tiny edit suggestion on the structure of the first post: put your proposal before the target resolution. Makes quoting less confusing.

[Imperium Anglorum]

PARSONS: We concur with the reasoning above, and in line with our generally liberal interests with regard to industrial regulation, we will support this proposal should it go to vote.

[Whovian Tardisia]

OOC: This may be illegal due to the house of cards rule. Your entire argument rests on the fact that there are already resolutions in place that cover this, yet it would fall flat if all of those resolutions were repealed. However, given this is a repeal itself, I may be wrong about this. Perhaps the Secretariat's council could enlighten me?

[Kryozerkia]

OOC: This may be illegal due to the house of cards rule. Your entire argument rests on the fact that there are already resolutions in place that cover this, yet it would fall flat if all of those resolutions were repealed. However, given this is a repeal itself, I may be wrong about this. Perhaps the Secretariat's council could enlighten me?

The House of Cards rule doesn't apply to repeals.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: This may be illegal due to the house of cards rule. Your entire argument rests on the fact that there are already resolutions in place that cover this, yet it would fall flat if all of those resolutions were repealed. However, given this is a repeal itself, I may be wrong about this. Perhaps the Secretariat's council could enlighten me?

The House of Cards rule doesn't apply to repeals.

OOC: Why not? A repeal that relies solely on existing resolutions for its arguments falls flat if those resolutions are repealed.

Besides, if mild duplication is considered legal, I don't see why it should be considered a valid repeal argument. The Mods clearly considered the resolution in question to be unique enough to be legal, so I'm not sure if the resolution's alleged lack of uniqueness should be held against it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Why not? A repeal that relies solely on existing resolutions for its arguments falls flat if those resolutions are repealed.

A repeal acts once. It does not continue to act, as do normal resolutions.

[Excidium Planetis]

"I wish to express my support. We don't need all this useless red tape to mine asteroids." Blackbourne remarks. "Best of luck, Miss... er..."

Blackbourne glances down at his datatab. "Deputy Under-Secretary Ausserkundszell."

OOC: This may be illegal due to the house of cards rule. Your entire argument rests on the fact that there are already resolutions in place that cover this, yet it would fall flat if all of those resolutions were repealed. However, given this is a repeal itself, I may be wrong about this. Perhaps the Secretariat's council could enlighten me?

Why did this have to be OOC? Why can't things like House of Cards be brought up ICly? I understand switching to OOC for things like Metagaming and Game Mechanics, but this is an IC forum, and things that can be phrased ICly ("Hey, wouldn't this repeal fail to have meaning if the resolutions it mentions are repealed?") should be phrased ICly. Unless of course they aren't something your character would say.

OOC: Why not? A repeal that relies solely on existing resolutions for its arguments falls flat if those resolutions are repealed.

1) That's not what House of Cards is, however. House of Cards is not designed to prevent arguments from losing meaning, not even the ones in regular resolutions. It is designed to prevent active clauses from failing because they relied on a previous resolution.
2) By the logic that the arguments would no longer make sense if the resolutions they reference are repealed, all repeals would be House of Cards, because their arguments rely on the resolution they are repealing being in force. As soon as the target resolution is repealed, their arguments fall flat, don't they?

[Wallenburg]

OOC: This may be illegal due to the house of cards rule. Your entire argument rests on the fact that there are already resolutions in place that cover this, yet it would fall flat if all of those resolutions were repealed. However, given this is a repeal itself, I may be wrong about this. Perhaps the Secretariat's council could enlighten me?

Why did this have to be OOC? Why can't things like House of Cards be brought up ICly? I understand switching to OOC for things like Metagaming and Game Mechanics, but this is an IC forum, and things that can be phrased ICly ("Hey, wouldn't this repeal fail to have meaning if the resolutions it mentions are repealed?") should be phrased ICly. Unless of course they aren't something your character would say.

OOC: Excidium, there's absolutely no reason to get so frustrated over someone speaking OOC.

[The Rouge Christmas State]

Full support, the fewer the regulations the better the profit margins.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Why did this have to be OOC? Why can't things like House of Cards be brought up ICly? I understand switching to OOC for things like Metagaming and Game Mechanics, but this is an IC forum, and things that can be phrased ICly ("Hey, wouldn't this repeal fail to have meaning if the resolutions it mentions are repealed?") should be phrased ICly. Unless of course they aren't something your character would say.

OOC: Excidium, there's absolutely no reason to get so frustrated over someone speaking OOC.

Preach. If we actually care about discourse and debate, all of the annoying crap with regard to OOC tags does nothing but detract from that discourse with stupid point-scoring substantiated by nothing more than an appeal to tradition.

[Araraukar]

If we actually care about discourse and debate, all of the annoying crap with regard to OOC tags does nothing but detract from that discourse with stupid point-scoring substantiated by nothing more than an appeal to tradition.

OOC: I mark out-of-character things "OOC" because I don't use quotation marks or screenplay style, and use OOC for things that refer to the posts as posts, or forum code, or any such obvious non-IC thing. In the past I've readily replied to OOC comments in IC, if they were things that could've been said in IC without any 4th wall breaking.

[Imperium Anglorum]

If we actually care about discourse and debate, all of the annoying crap with regard to OOC tags does nothing but detract from that discourse with stupid point-scoring substantiated by nothing more than an appeal to tradition.

OOC: I mark out-of-character things "OOC" because I don't use quotation marks or screenplay style, and use OOC for things that refer to the posts as posts, or forum code, or any such obvious non-IC thing. In the past I've readily replied to OOC comments in IC, if they were things that could've been said in IC without any 4th wall breaking.

To be clear, I my comment concerns the trend amongst some authors to complain about IC-OOC tags as if that were important.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: Excidium, there's absolutely no reason to get so frustrated over someone speaking OOC.

I'm not the one who is frustrated:

I guess I'd argue that "etiquette" dates from a time it was remotely possible to conduct a drafting thread IC in this forum.

Yeah, there's no thread ownership, but if the OP wants a mostly IC thread, something which should happen anyways, why should that not be respected.

And I just realized all of this is OOC. Crap.

Preach. If we actually care about discourse and debate, all of the annoying crap with regard to OOC tags does nothing but detract from that discourse with stupid point-scoring substantiated by nothing more than an appeal to tradition.

It isn't about tradition, it is about RP. Without RP, this is just General with a fancy voting system.

It still is. But you'll have to understand that many people will have to use RL examples, because similar info just doesn't exist for the WA.

The only problem is that in this case, Whovian Tardisia didn't use OOC to bring up real life examples, so that isn't what Schutzenphalia and West Ruhntuhnkuhnland was complaining about.

[Noahs Second Country]

hmm

[Separatist Peoples]

Asserting that deliberately targeting the uranium mining industry, the chief source of fuel for nuclear energy, with burdensome and unnecessary legislation is likely to curb the potential to fully employ nuclear energy and thereby produce an overall net negative environmental impact through a return to polluting fossil fuel industries,

"This delegation finds the above clause to be, by far, the most convincing of the arguments. I, for one, find it amusing that the Clean Energy Act could very easily end up repealed for exactly the reasons this repeal suggests legislation on the topic is unnecessary. Perhaps the Clean Energy Act should go after this passes, just for funsies. Thank you, Secretary. Is Secretary an appropriate shortening? Second Deputy Under-Secretary is a mouthful."

[Gages Icelandic Army]

My country uses ITER's and IFR's. Those nuclear reactors are not only safe, but Eco-friendly. It's a damn shame that we get regulated to point of oblivion to achieve an end that was inevitable anyway.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: Why not? A repeal that relies solely on existing resolutions for its arguments falls flat if those resolutions are repealed.

1) That's not what House of Cards is, however. House of Cards is not designed to prevent arguments from losing meaning, not even the ones in regular resolutions. It is designed to prevent active clauses from failing because they relied on a previous resolution.

OOC: Repeals tend to have only one active clause, though. I'd argue therefore that preambles in repeals should be held to a higher standard.

2) By the logic that the arguments would no longer make sense if the resolutions they reference are repealed, all repeals would be House of Cards, because their arguments rely on the resolution they are repealing being in force. As soon as the target resolution is repealed, their arguments fall flat, don't they?

OOC: Yeah, I could have worded that better. That said, you and I both know that forbidding repeals from mentioning their targets is absurd. There is no absurdity involved when it comes to other resolutions, however.

Anyway, we're clogging up the thread. It's best if we continue this elsewhere.

[Whovian Tardisia]

*snip*

OOC: It is my understanding that mentioning the "rules" breaks the fourth wall as they were created by the mods and are not established in a WA resolution, which is why I mentioned them OOC. I've never seen anyone reference them ICly, either.

EDIT: Regarding States of Glory's point, perhaps a split to Moderation is in order?

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: Regarding States of Glory's point, perhaps a split to Moderation is in order?

OOC: I'm not sure if Moderation is the right place for this kind of discussion.

[Whovian Tardisia]

OOC: Regarding States of Glory's point, perhaps a split to Moderation is in order?

OOC: I'm not sure if Moderation is the right place for this kind of discussion.

OOC: Yeah, I was a bit tired when I said that, wasn't thinking straight. I can't think of a place though.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Yeah, I was a bit tired when I said that, wasn't thinking straight. I can't think of a place though.

OOC: An OOC discussion thread here on GA forum. They're allowed, as long as we don't clog up the forum with only rules discussion threads.

IC: I have a feeling that the author of this proposal is aiming to make their repeal as controversial as possible on purpose, in order to spark discussion about the proposal rules, rather than making a good faith attempt at trying to repeal the target resolution. They have done this before. Thus it's entirely possible that it is just a waste of time to try and help them with the proposal.

[2nd Thij Empire]

There is a simalir issue.

[Schutzenphalia and West Ruhntuhnkuhnland]

IC: I have a feeling that the author of this proposal is aiming to make their repeal as controversial as possible on purpose, in order to spark discussion about the proposal rules, rather than making a good faith attempt at trying to repeal the target resolution. They have done this before. Thus it's entirely possible that it is just a waste of time to try and help them with the proposal.

OOC: What the fuck are you talking about. SWR has no in-character relationship to Gruenberg - so far as I'm aware, the two don't even exist in the same universe - and the proposal you linked to is very specifically marked as OOC.

This post is a great example of how completely eroded the RP culture of the WA forum has become. I don't always agree with GR, but he is certainly right that for some people, "RP" is now just spewing whatever they think OOC and jamming their character's name on the end.

Thanks to this reality-jarring bit of filth, I am abandoning this thread. Use it to talk about whatever you like.