[PASSED] Repeal "Industrial Pollution Control"

[Auralia]

Starting out by assuming the conclusion as a premise is counterproductive at best. At minimum it makes any following argument seem trumped up to support a pre-determined outcome whether that outcome is ultimately justified or not. In this case it may be justified; but that certainly hasn't been established yet.

That is an introductory clause. It does not assume the conclusion as a premise because it is substantiated by later arguments. Should an essay not begin with a thesis statement because no constructive arguments have yet been made?

That seems disingenuous. Section 4 (and only Section 4) deliberately and specifically lists five things which member nations are required to do to be in compliance with this act, while not micromanaging the exact manner in which they must do them.

There is a delicate balance between too much micromanagement and too little clarity. This resolution unquestionably fails on the far side of that scale.

"Natural" is not the same thing as "native...

As stated in an earlier post, "natural" clearly means "native" in this context, not "not artifical".

It is in fact quite relevant whether an unpopulated area is unsafe or contains pollution, for a number of reasons.

True, but not to the same extent. As I said earlier, I will change "irrelevant" to "limited relevance".

Speaking of nuclear waste, is it really the intention of any WA member state to convert whole areas to wasteland for the disposal of pollutants?

Even when appropriate measures are taken to secure dangerous waste, substantial risk remains. I doubt too many people want to live next to a toxic or nuclear waste disposal site.

My colleague from Pacifist Chipmunks addressed this quite adequately. It's a flaw, but it's also entirely clear from context what is required.

No, not really. The word "adapt" also makes sense in that context, though it substantially limits the effectiveness of that clause.

The lack of definition of "energy contaminant" is a real concern, since this phrase is not widely enough used to be covered by Reasonable Nation Theory. We're assuming for the moment that it means radioactive materials, in contradistinction to chemical contaminants...

Actually, given that the definition seems to have been taken from the Wikipedia article on pollution, it means sound pollution.

"Adverse change..." is obviously straightforward and can't possibly be held up as an example of "lack of clarity." Plain reading is more than sufficient.

"Adverse change" is vague and over-broad. What is "adverse" change? What magnitude of "adverse change" is required to trigger that clause? Both are important questions that the resolution doesn't answer.

The WASP does the recommending; member nations are required to do the reducing. Surely you wouldn't want the WASP to have total control over member nations' laws and economies? It's clearly spelled out that the WASP "work[s] with member nations" [emphasis mine] to come up with the pollution reduction recommendations; it is then the member nation's responsibility to try to reach those goals.

Per clause 4(i), the pollution reduction requirements seem to be mandatory and not on a "best effort" basis.

We note that without a penalty listed for failure to comply in a timely fashion, this act does not have the sort of far-reaching teeth that some nations are apparently worried about.

Doesn't the resolution require member nations to criminalize violations of the resolution (including failure to meet reduction targets, I suppose) under clause 4(iv)?

Nothing in the act appears to give the WASP this kind of power.

We disagree, per our argumentation above.

[Pacifist Chipmunks]

Well, obviously the Auralian delegation is free to write the proposal as they like. We still feel the version presented is weak rhetorically. It seems to shoot scattershot at an array of potential (though not definitively argued) shortcomings with the original resolution and fails to define and support a central theme for repeal. Some of the arguments seem to be a stretch to us.

Perhaps a lot of our negative evaluation of this text is a bias in us PC delegates. We are increasingly reading contemporary repeals as just patchworks of whiny arguments and unimaginative or far-fetched interpretations of the original resolutions. Perhaps repeal proposals have suffered from this for a long time (are we guilty as charged?)--not that whininess is a failing of this repeal text per se (we have already spoken more specifically to what we feel this repeal text lacks): that is a more general feeling of ours.

All the same, best of luck.

-BH

[Auralia]

Submitted.

[United industrial]

Submitted.

Thank you for submitting this

[Chester Pearson]

UNITED FEDERATION OF CANADA



IMPERIAL MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

At the behest of Prime Minister Jack Layston, we are please to cast our vote of AYE. This resolution was a travesty, and never should have passed by this Assembly in the first place... The wording was ambiguous at best, and is utterly unenforceable. We are hopeful this repeal will pass, and thus another terrible resolution will be removed from international history forever.....

Warmest regards,

[Draica]

While the Republic of Draica believes in enviormental protection, we do NOT believe in strangiling every percentage of our economy out for crushing rules and regulations.

As Ambassador for the Republic, Alexander Tung, I will vote YES for this measure on behalf of the people and the Government of Draica.

[Normlpeople]

This was another "environment is good man" piece of legislation that never should have left the planning stages in its current form, and glares with mistakes as a result. Happy to have voted for this repeal.

[Pacifist Chipmunks]

Voted against, due to generally unconvincing arguments.

-BH

[Marschall]

"We find this act a little premature, and wish to vote agains't due our reliance on industry. We are working on reformations for a more ecological friendly industry, but in the meanwhile we do not wish to lose incomes. This would only block our possibilities with our reformations. I wish that this act is delayed."

- Christopher Valesmark, Ambassador of the Marschall confederation.

[Moronist Decisions]

"We find this act a little premature, and wish to vote agains't due our reliance on industry. We are working on reformations for a more ecological friendly industry, but in the meanwhile we do not wish to lose incomes. This would only block our possibilities with our reformations. I wish that this act is delayed."

- Christopher Valesmark, Ambassador of the Marschall confederation.

Nothing prevents your own nations from passing laws that allow you to make reforms to enable an ecologically more friendly environmental in your own nation. Repealing this would also, in fact, allow you to reduce pollution controls, since the target resolution was intended to be environmentally friendly.

[Norilova]

The People's Republic of Norilova firmly votes YES to this proposal, but the intent of such proposal seems honorable. Thus, why not have the author of that resolution submit a revised proposal, or even someone else, that clearly states the obligations of us all in terms of environmental protection, and clarifies specific issues with the bill, on top of fixing the supposed issues with the bill. That way, we can protect the environment, without this song and dance happening weeks or months from now.

[Mitonialia]

On the motion proposed to repeal previously passed legislation, Mitonialia votes Yea. In the actual legislation previously passed, it will be noted that Mitonialia was concerned that the World Assembly was being made to meddle into the affairs of individual nations, believing that environmental regulation could better be served by each nation and region itself. This will continue to be our position in the WA as long as is necessary.

[Savage-Borg]

"This is compete hogwash!" Exclaims the Savage Representative as he adjusts his new brown bowler hat.

"Our governments should be allowed to do what they want when they want with industry! And anyone who disagree's can just leave this assembly room."

[The Teutonic States]

I'll approve of this, but only because I hope better Pollution Control measures will be put in place.

[United industrial]

Thank god it looks like we are going to win and thank auralia for his tireless effort in crafting this repeal and getting to a vote from the very beginning I have disapproved of this proposal and have voted to repeal this horrible proposal so once again thank you auralia for this repeal proposal and thank you to all who voted unfavorable of this repeal

[Retired WerePenguins]

Pleased to be reading the following statement from the staff, "Tl;dr. Hate the resolution so love the repeal." I would like to add that a vote in favor of this repeal kills a WASP. That's got to be good.

[Moronist Decisions]

I have voted FOR this repeal after a unanimous 9-0 vote dictated said action. We find the target resolution to be unnecessary micromanagement and overtly intrusive, and stand by our earlier opposition to the target resolution.

/s/ Moronist Decisions
World Assembly Delegate of Europeia

[Voltzenkrad]

Francis Underwood has convinced me to sway my vote in favor of the repeal. [House of Cards reference]

[Saint Philipsburg]

It's one thing to get a resolution passed by over 60%, only to have a solid majority mounting to repeal it less than three weeks since its passage. How you like the functioning of the World Assembly? Pass resolutions this week, repeal them next week.

Someone, please inform me of what this repeal will be replaced with?

[Mousebumples]

Someone, please inform me of what this repeal will be replaced with?

Hopefully nothing.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Actually, given that the definition seems to have been taken from the Wikipedia article on pollution, it means sound pollution.

Not sure that it is a given, but even if so, the most cursory reading there indicates it also encompasses heat pollution, which is a serious problem for (for example) the streams used for cooling at nuclear power plants; the increased heat causes algae blooms which choke other life out of existence and leave a much simpler, much crappier ecosystem. Ever tried trout fishing downstream of a nuke plant? It ain't the radiation that killed them. Heat pollution is thus a much more visible and substantial problem than what could be seen as largely the yuppie or "white people" problem of noise pollution. This clear omission leaves us convinced that this repeal would have been attempted even had the target resolution been perfectly crafted and totally explicit on its effects, simply because so many nations abhor acknowledging any slightest hint that industrial activities have ever done any harm to anything ever (or ever could).

However, this is all moot, as described below.

It's one thing to get a resolution passed by over 60%, only to have a solid majority mounting to repeal it less than three weeks since its passage. How you like the functioning of the World Assembly? Pass resolutions this week, repeal them next week.

Someone, please inform me of what this repeal will be replaced with?

Guess that's what happens when the substance of your bill is extremely popular, but its execution and wording are ultimately terrible.

We withdraw our objections to the repeal as it's become clear that a single resolution that can have such wildly varying interpretations of its effects is unambiguously a poor one, and unenforceable anyway, regardless of its actual intent. Presumably there's room somewhere for a resolution that actually makes the sense that this one tried to; that is explicit and clear in all its particulars; free of usage and grammar errors; and slightly more restrained in its effects. There must be room there, I say, else how would the target resolution have passed in the first place? Unless the vast majority of this Assembly is suffering from clinical mental illness, which several wags will no doubt note can't be entirely ruled out.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We had our misgivings about GAR #281 when it came up for vote, but ended up voting for it anyways to follow our region's majority. The current sentiment in Anime appears to have changed, though, and this repeal is enjoying broad regional support. Barring any major changes, we will be voting for the repeal.

[Separatist Peoples]

It's one thing to get a resolution passed by over 60%, only to have a solid majority mounting to repeal it less than three weeks since its passage. How you like the functioning of the World Assembly? Pass resolutions this week, repeal them next week.

Someone, please inform me of what this repeal will be replaced with?

The ones you see here debating, ambassador, are rarely the problem. Take it up with the various desk jockeys that don't bother participating in the debate, and vote "yea" for things just for shits and giggles. Those of us who care are, regrettably, outnumbered.

[Retired WerePenguins]

It's one thing to get a resolution passed by over 60%, only to have a solid majority mounting to repeal it less than three weeks since its passage. How you like the functioning of the World Assembly? Pass resolutions this week, repeal them next week.

As someone once told me on a completely different subject, "It beats the alternative."

Someone, please inform me of what this repeal will be replaced with?

NOTHING. Seriously, I think that the category/strength is a good one, and that I wouldn't mind a well written resolution on ... REAL POLLUTION. But if it is going to decimate (I hope everyone realizes that "decimate" actually means to "reduce by 10% ... not that I actually know the exact percentage in the category/strength) all industries then it better have some real teeth to it. It has to mandate the costs of pollution control to those industries. It probably should indirectly address a number of daily issues by prohibiting the transfer of such waste to non WA nations or international waters.

Besides, such a resolution would never pass anyway.

[Fantoche]

Noting the target resolution defines "threshold of environmental quality" as "the level of environmental degradation beyond which an area is deemed unsafe for population or unable to sustain natural flora and fauna",

Concerned that this definition does not distinguish between areas that are permanently as opposed to only temporarily unable to sustain native flora or fauna, and excludes areas that are able to sustain an equivalent level of biodiversity through non-native flora or fauna,

Distressed that this definition also fails to take into account the limited relevance of whether or not an area is unsafe for population when no population is actually present in that area, as well as that it is sometimes necessary to permanently make an area unsafe for population in order to safely dispose of dangerous materials, such as nuclear waste,
The resolution requires members to implement pollution reduction targets; this does not and should not be dependent upon the permanence of the inability to sustain natural flora and fauna. If an area is temporarily unable to sustain natural flora and fauna because of pollution, the area still needs to be cleaned up. In addition, unless the Auralian delegation wishes to add GA#259 Stopping Invasive Species to the list of resolutions with which it fails to comply, then it cannot utilize non-native flora and fauna in biodiversity levels anyway. This line of reasoning is concerning in and of itself, however, as the Auralian delegation is effectively arguing that environmental degradation through pollution should be offset by environmental degradation through non-native species. Further, the definition uses OR, indicating that one of the two conditions must be satisfied. Therefore, if no population lives there, the natural flora and fauna can be taken into account instead. Although GA#116 only covers waste that is transferred between nations, it seems reasonable to expect that member nations which store their own waste follow similar guidelines. Namely, that waste is stored such that it won't leak and pollute the environment. In addition, areas which are sufficiently isolated from poulations are also likely to not have extensive flora and fauna to manage. So unless Auralia is dumping toxic waste out in the open and/or in areas with abundant natural flora and fauna, it is unlikely that disposal will conflict with efforts at pollution reduction.

Perplexed that the target resolution only appears to require that member nations "adapt" (as opposed to "adopt") thresholds of environmental quality,
WASP works with member nations to assess the thresholds, to estimate the economic viability of adapting the thresholds, and to produce suitable recommended targets. WASP in effect acts in an advisory role. Member nations also adapt both the thresholds and the implementation of targets, because they will better understand the local conditions and be able to react to changes in these conditions. WASP advises, member nations take the advice into account and adapt thresholds and targets for themselves. WASP, however, is explicitly required to take into account economic conditions, so that it does not recommend that nations bankrupt themselves attempting to reduce pollution.

Further noting that the target resolution defines "pollution" as "chemical and energy contaminants that cause adverse change in the environment or the health of a population",

Dismayed by the lack of clarity as to what exactly constitutes an "energy contaminant" or an "adverse change in the environment or the health of a population", as well as the lack of any distinction between "pollution" and "industrial pollution" even though both terms are used throughout the resolution,
I disagree with the nation above; this is covered by Reasonable Nation Theory. The Auralian delegation found the source of the term by doing basic research into the background of pollution. The definition provides a good idea of what is applicable without getting into the mess of "But this would ban bug spray!" that characterized the various attempts at regulating chemical weapons. As for pollution vs. industrial pollution, there are two simple steps: 1. What is pollution? 2. What does industrial mean? Really, the WA isn't a nanny state that needs to define every single term used in a resolution, especially those terms with obvious definitions.

Confused by the target resolution's contradictory mandates with respect to pollution reduction targets, for which implementation is merely "recommended" in clause 3(iv) yet apparently required in clauses 4(i) and 4(ii),
As mentioned above, WASP makes recommendations, which the member nation takes into account when making its determination for the targets and thresholds. Not every resolution has the committee implement mandatory changes; this resolution puts the onus on the member states to make changes based upon advice from the committee.

Alarmed by the lack of an appeals process or even any clearly established criteria for the World Assembly Science Program's determination of pollution reduction targets, which - assuming the implementation of pollution targets is actually required - allows the Program to arbitrarily restrict industries in World Assembly member nations without any accountability,
Again, the committee isn't forcing changes here. This would be like saying that the member nation needs an appeals process for the decision it makes itself based on the process it conceives for implementation. WASP doesn't have specific criteria for targets because the list could go on to absurd degrees. The criteria are, on a basic level, whatever WASP needs to produce these targets. In context, it's safe to assume that this includes, at minimum, economic data and reports on environmental quality. In addition, WASP is required to work with member nations, so the idea that the decisions can be arbitrary is unfounded. Member nations can voice their concerns and seek redress while formulating the targets and thresholds, and when reassessing these when economic conditions change. The lack of a formal appeals process is compensated for by having WASP and member nations working together to establish these thresholds and targets from the beginning. In effect, if Auralia is unable to convince WASP of the necessity of certain changes to the thresholds and targets, then economic conditions are stable and Auralian arguments are insufficient to alter the overall scientific consensus that led to the determinations from WASP.

Overall, Fantoche is opposed to this repeal.