[PASSED] Industrial Pollution Control Act

[Sakash]

Forgive my ignorance, but how does one "adapt" a threshold of environmental quality? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I thought the thresholds were simply lines in the sand beyond which the environmental health of a nation is considered severely damaged. Do they come with policy recommendations or other such "adaptable" things? The WASP already creates policy recommendations elsewhere in this draft. I may be nitpicking, but I just don't understand.

Not severely damaged but unsafe. to clarify the point, a drinking water source cannot be polluted to the extent that it becomes unsafe for drinking. So Nation are expected to identify these unsafe limits and control pollution to that extent considering their economic condition with the help of WASP. WASP gives the threshold values and recommendations for pollution reduction targets based on economic condition of the nation.

Threshold values are like ultimate safe pollution limits that we aim for. Pollution reduction targets are practically achievable values of pollution control based on economic condition of the nation as per WASP.

I think you can expand this to include any laws or regulations set in place as a result of this act, as the WA doesn't have the authority to regulate the actions of your citizens in the way criminal laws are concerned

I have got the feedback that any detailing regarding this can be considered as micromanaging. Can you refer me the active resolution that doesnt allow me to criminalize violation of the act?

[Tea Party USA 2]

If the pollution coming from my nation only pollutes my nation then its not a problem. Rather then forcing industries why don't we encourage them to do better and those who listen will get a tax credit.

[Separatist Peoples]

If the pollution coming from my nation only pollutes my nation then its not a problem. Rather then forcing industries why don't we encourage them to do better and those who listen will get a tax credit.

Ambassador, I agree with your distaste for this proposal, but pollution from your nation so very, very rarely only affects only your own nation. Since the natural systems of a planet do not respect national borders, there is no way to guarantee that it won't affect other nations. That's why environmental legislation, by the very nature of what it is trying to protect, is best handled by international organizations.

[Tea Party USA 2]

Separatist Peoples I agree with your vision but I still believe that we must change the attitude from one that works against industries and imposes often useless laws to one that works with industry by offering support in the form of tax credits.

[Separatist Peoples]

Separatist Peoples I agree with your vision but I still believe that we must change the attitude from one that works against industries and imposes often useless laws to one that works with industry by offering support in the form of tax credits.

Which doesn't work in systems that don't tax citizens. Or have any functional understanding of currency. Which is why your idea isn't going to work.

[Tea Party USA 2]

Separatist Peoples I agree with your vision but I still believe that we must change the attitude from one that works against industries and imposes often useless laws to one that works with industry by offering support in the form of tax credits.

Which doesn't work in systems that don't tax citizens. Or have any functional understanding of currency. Which is why your idea isn't going to work.

I don't think your getting my overall point here and that is instead of treating industry as an enemy lets work with it to find ways to reduce pollution without killing off thousands of jobs. That is what I am trying to get across.

[Separatist Peoples]

Which doesn't work in systems that don't tax citizens. Or have any functional understanding of currency. Which is why your idea isn't going to work.

I don't think your getting my overall point here and that is instead of treating industry as an enemy lets work with it to find ways to reduce pollution without killing off thousands of jobs. That is what I am trying to get across.

Nothing says that you, at a national level, can't find a way to do that. What you are proposing will take far more fine-tuning then the WA is capable of. That's why the WA sets broad and relatively vague legislation, and leads the specifics to individual nations. Welcome to the World Assembly, and the results of trying to legislate for varieties of economies, cultures, species, and technology levels in 3,500 words or less.

[The Realm of Nitsuj]

Sounds good to me

[Elke and Elba]

So, who's going to defend this? Sakash hasn't been around for almost 10 days.

[Sakash]

So, who's going to defend this? Sakash hasn't been around for almost 10 days.

i been buzy but not really away. didn't see anything to respond to.

[Eireann Fae]

(OOC: Bump for At Vote. Good luck.)

[Varislavia]

As a nation truly committed to environmental issues, the Supreme Justice Court of Varislavia has given a green light for the Government to vote yes on this resolution. It's no longer time for short-sight and short-term policies. The perennial growth it's just a fantasy and totally unsustainable. Natural resources, especially water, must be protected by any means available.

We hope as many nations as possible join this effort.

[Auralia]

Opposed. This resolution effectively grants the World Assembly Science Program the authority to create pollution regulations for all member nations. As a rule, I dislike resolutions that give a committee that much power.

Supporters should keep in mind that there is a clear typo in clause 4(i) of the resolution - the word "adapt" is used instead of "adopt" - that substantially impacts the efficacy of the proposal.

[United industrial]

this proposal is the most dangerous i have seen to hit the floor of the WA since i have been a member. To simply ask all member nations to cold turkey industrial pollution is apsolutly crazy considering nations myself included rely on industry heavily to grow are economies. i have numerous problems with this bill to name a few of them

1 who will compensate the member nations that have the most invested in there industrial sector and that stand to lose the most if this resolution is passed

2 who is going to help with the unemployment that will no doubt sky rocket because factories are closing there door

3 who is going to compensate us for the millions if not billions of dollars that will be lost if this bill passes

4 and lets not forget about the boom in inflation if this bill passes

now in the proposal the WA organization of WASP is mentioned at being the driving force if this bill is passed but in my experience single organizations like WASP that will be taxed with this burden can't efficiantly succeed in accomplishing this goal and will inevitably fail as a result this proposal is poisonous and threatens to destroy all members of the WA with huge industrial sectors with no just compensation are real solution if it passes

i am open to debate this issue with any one who wishes to engage me with rebuttles or concerns

[Bananaistan]

Supporters should keep in mind that there is a clear typo in clause 4(i) of the resolution - the word "adapt" is used instead of "adopt" - that substantially impacts the efficacy of the proposal.

Excellent spot.

I have changed my vote to against on this basis. The whole thing is effectively pointless due to that.

[United industrial]

Opposed. This resolution effectively grants the World Assembly Science Program the authority to create pollution regulations for all member nations. As a rule, I dislike resolutions that give a committee that much power.

Supporters should keep in mind that there is a clear typo in clause 4(i) of the resolution - the word "adapt" is used instead of "adopt" - that substantially impacts the efficacy of the proposal.

auralia is absolutly right giving to much power to one organization is never a good thing and after rereading clause 4(i) of the resolution this mistake voids this resolution and should be removed

[Polarisdany]

It is regrettable that the current pollution proposal will lose, we are sad. We will support the drafting of a new one. The world needs this to survive!

I don't understand why you see this will fail. It is just what is needed at this moment in time. PLease, if you would, tell me why this would fail?

[Separatist Peoples]

It is regrettable that the current pollution proposal will lose, we are sad. We will support the drafting of a new one. The world needs this to survive!

I don't understand why you see this will fail. It is just what is needed at this moment in time. PLease, if you would, tell me why this would fail?

The technical flaws in the resolution, for one. And the fact that this consolidates far too much power over our industrial complex into one committee doesn't help.

[Alpha Empire]

How could anyone be willing to give such unchecked and powerful tools to this "WASP" group who in no way could possibly regulate every single industry of every single nation? Worst yet is this notion that this group can somehow understand every environmental detail and accurately regulate polluting industry without somehow bankrupting a developing nation.

This proposal is not only a broad draconian measure but also a futile exercise of excessive micromanagement.

Absolutely opposed.

[Retired WerePenguins]

For the record at this point I am on the fence on this one, pending the consensus of the nations of my region. On the one hand, I can see how some might see this as massive power for the WASP. On the other hand, I can also see how this isn't enough power. Consider the definition, "The level of environmental degradation beyond which an area is deemed unsafe for population or unable to sustain natural flora and fauna." In other words you have to either reach a "unsafe" level for the people, or a condition where flora and fauna cannot be sustained at all. Levels of pollution that may cause undue stress upon people or the environment are not covered under this resolution.

So for the moment, I'll abstain, courteously.

[Discoveria]

Supporters should keep in mind that there is a clear typo in clause 4(i) of the resolution - the word "adapt" is used instead of "adopt" - that substantially impacts the efficacy of the proposal.

^This. Well spotted.

[Corsahnim]

I simply have to disagree with this. Most major businesses in the more capitalist nations are a major source of our income, and we can't just decrease the value of all of the member nations currency by passing this law.
I AM FOR decreasing pollution, really, but that's more of a domestic problem of mine than a world problem.

[Rotwood]

I simply have to disagree with this. Most major businesses in the more capitalist nations are a major source of our income, and we can't just decrease the value of all of the member nations currency by passing this law.
I AM FOR decreasing pollution, really, but that's more of a domestic problem of mine than a world problem.

...Except when said pollution crosses borders...

[Mitonialia]

Unfortunately, Mitonialia, and with the greatest respect to those members who have voted in favor of said legislation, cannot as the proposal stands now vote in favor of said legislation. If this nation and others, were in need of oversight from each other, then this nation itself would have proposed such legislation as a mindful thought toward protection of the world. We believe that a softer proposal, more focused in Industry paying for conservation and against the concept that industry is solely to blame for pollution in nations of the world and regions. The concept also that nations can pay for companies in the effort to fight pollution, is one that is unfortunately a practice this nation is already trying to do away with, in a reverse to previous policy. Mitonialia would vote Yes however, if Section iv of the Mandates section and Point Six were struck, in the effort to promote compromise and reduce partisanship within the World Assembly. If however, such a compromise is impossible, a No Vote will be maintained.

[Aboras]

Voted in favor...