[Passed] Reducing Spills and Leaks

[Cerlor]

It is every nation's duty to minimize their impact on the environment. Obvious yay.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

The Organic Vegan Commune of Frustrated Franciscans
Official Delegation to the World Assembly
“We praise You, Lord, for Sister Death!”
Friar John Sanders, OFM Ambassador and WA representative
Friar Tuck Ferguson, OFM Assistant Ambassador
Brother Maynard, TOR Keeper of the Holy Hand-grenade

On behalf of the Commune, we are proud to support this fine repeal. We would like to note, in passing that "Salda" in Latin is a variation of "Salta" which in turn means ...

leap, jump; move suddenly/spasmodically (part of body under stress), twitch;
spurt, discharge, be ejected under force (water/fluid); mount/cover (by stud);

Well played, Douria ... Well played.

[Opplandia]

well, in my opinion Point 4 about blocking/banning transports from nations that dont hold these Standards, is having a problem. the thing is that stuff like toxic- or maybe nuclear waste in a mere "Container" always holds an extremely high possebility for leaks, which makes them always a possible danger to the environment; no matter how highly-standartised these Containers may be. considering that, I would say that hindering such transports to reach a possible safe-storage facility by blocking them, is an unacceptable danger to the environment and the people. this might even be concidered illegal, depending on the circumstances. so I would say that Point 4 needs to be re-worked.

[Defwa]

well, in my opinion Point 4 about blocking/banning transports from nations that dont hold these Standards, is having a problem. the thing is that stuff like toxic- or maybe nuclear waste in a mere "Container" always holds an extremely high possebility for leaks, which makes them always a possible danger to the environment; no matter how highly-standartised these Containers may be. considering that, I would say that hindering such transports to reach a possible safe-storage facility by blocking them, is an unacceptable danger to the environment and the people. this might even be concidered illegal, depending on the circumstances. so I would say that Point 4 needs to be re-worked.

If the vessel is in compliance with SALDA's recommendations, then it is not automatically barred entry under this resolution. There is an "and" in that sentence that is very important.

If there is some radioactive cargo ship containing both the remnants of Krypton and the flying AIDS virus, as long as it follows the requirements of SALDA, it is okay.

[Arataka]

This looks like a fair proposal.

Supported!

[Scow Creek]

Well, we voted no, though this is likely to pass. And we voted no because we have an incredibly strenuous, pro-environment culture.

Any effort to boil down environmental degradation to a one-size-fits-all list of rules and approaches runs counter to the well-established maxim that all environmental protection *must* be site-specific. It is wrong to let a polluter off simply because he has complied with the law in an extremely sensitive area, just as it is wrong to punish a polluter for degrading an area that has already been so degraded that it was the best choice for a necessary action.

The bottom line is, we do NOT need inflexible laws and statutes that impose structure on all. Rather, we in the Kingdom of The Scow Creek Islands Group rest on our Common Law, which provides for a fundamental action in Trespass-on-Society. If there is harm done, it must be remedied in our Common Law Courts of Equity. Period.

[Chester Pearson]

The bottom line is, we do NOT need inflexible laws and statutes that impose structure on all.

Welcome to the WA son....

[The Dourian Embassy]

The bottom line is, we do NOT need inflexible laws and statutes that impose structure on all.

Welcome to the WA son....

A somewhat ironic bottom line since this doesn't do what he thinks it does. Still... welcome to the WA is appropriate indeed.

[Solarmania]

Why "non-military?" Bombs don't spill out of an airplane. Bullets don't leak out of a gun. And frankly, if a member state accidentally drops bombs on a neighborhood, there should be some serious consequences to that. But this is the wrong type of resolution to address that issue, when it's obviously we want to talk about toxic substance spills.

We all know what a spill and a leak is. You guys are just making it hard on yourselves by trying to boil everything down into its English language sub-components.

Really? Haven't you heard of napalm? That can spill. On to the point here, try removing this proposal because some nation will try to repeal the bill.

[Christian Democrats]

Current forum vote: 1-3

The Rejected Realms is against this proposal.

Office of WA Affairs
The Rejected Realms

[The Oan Isles]

From: Ed Sanders
To: The World Assembly

---

Although my comment won't make much difference, I still want to post it. This resolution isn't specific enough for instance clause 1.A.a which says that SaLDA must "make whole" those affected by "spills and leaks". On that note, spills and leaks isn't specified as it seems as though "the contamination of an environment by a toxic substance as a result of illicit deliberate and/or negligent action" was intended however, again, that wasn't specified.

As the Ambassador of the Republic of The Oan Isles I had to vote against it.

[Bears Armed Mission]

"As the Delegate Elect of my home region, although not actually properly installed in office yet" (OOC: endorsement totals still need rearranging...) "and with voting on this proposal due to close relatively soon, I have now acted in accordance with the regional majority's wishes* and cast my mission's vote for this piece of legislation."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly



(* OOC: 5-1 in favour)

[Zercera]

4. Requires that nations deny entry to their territory to any transport owned and/or operated by an entity that does not follow SaLDA recommendations as outlined by clause 2 and which is carrying materials the nation to be transited considers capable of causing a spill or leak,

While I would have to agree to a large amount of this resolution, section 4, as posted above, seems a bit inflexible and excessive to me. Many nations still heavily rely on trade between themselves and non-WA to support their economies. This section of the bill could therefore restrict nearly all transport that enters from non-WA nations to WA nations, as most nations that are not in the WA will not follow its regulations, and since most vehicles for transport require gasoline and oil to function, which is always, by any reasonable measure, capable of spilling or leaking. This would therefore either force WA nations to deliberately misuse the law, or force non WA nations to adopt WA regulations if trade is to continue, neither of which is a preferable option.

[Defwa]

4. Requires that nations deny entry to their territory to any transport owned and/or operated by an entity that does not follow SaLDA recommendations as outlined by clause 2 and which is carrying materials the nation to be transited considers capable of causing a spill or leak,

While I would have to agree to a large amount of this resolution, section 4, as posted above, seems a bit inflexible and excessive to me. Many nations still heavily rely on trade between themselves and non-WA to support their economies. This section of the bill could therefore restrict nearly all transport that enters from non-WA nations to WA nations, as most nations that are not in the WA will not follow its regulations, and since most vehicles for transport require gasoline and oil to function, which is always, by any reasonable measure, capable of spilling or leaking. This would therefore either force WA nations to deliberately misuse the law, or force non WA nations to adopt WA regulations if trade is to continue, neither of which is a preferable option.

You find something that would force NonWA nations to not spew oil in all directions to be objectionable?

[Scow Creek]

Welcome to the WA son....

A somewhat ironic bottom line since this doesn't do what he thinks it does. Still... welcome to the WA is appropriate indeed.

Actually, it does...particularly Section I:

1. Establishes the Spill and Leak Disaster Administration (SaLDA) with the following responsibilities:

Creating safety standards...
Establishing cleanup standards....
Designing reimbursement standards....

As our Kingdom has these in place, it s not in our interest to have the World Assembly create, establish, and design that which may run counter to our own approach.

[Defwa]

A somewhat ironic bottom line since this doesn't do what he thinks it does. Still... welcome to the WA is appropriate indeed.

Actually, it does...particularly Section I:

1. Establishes the Spill and Leak Disaster Administration (SaLDA) with the following responsibilities:

Creating safety standards...
Establishing cleanup standards....
Designing reimbursement standards....

As our Kingdom has these in place, it s not in our interest to have the World Assembly create, establish, and design that which may run counter to our own approach.

If you believe your approaches would be superior to SALDAs suggestions, I see no reason you could not go ahead to suggest them for review. If they are truly better, I'm sure they would incorporate or adopt your approach.
And even if that does not occur, you're still free to add your own regulations on top of the general ones.

I'm not sure what contrary approach you're worried about

[Scow Creek]

If you believe your approaches would be superior to SALDAs suggestions, I see no reason you could not go ahead to suggest them for review. If they are truly better, I'm sure they would incorporate or adopt your approach.
And even if that does not occur, you're still free to add your own regulations on top of the general ones.

I'm not sure what contrary approach you're worried about

The paradigm being used is the problem; even your response above is couched in terms of "your own regulations on top of the general ones."

On environmental issues, ours is a strict Common Law nation, viewing all environmental degradation as acts of theft and/or trespass upon the community. As such, no "regulations" or statutes are necessary or desirable.

[Defwa]

If you believe your approaches would be superior to SALDAs suggestions, I see no reason you could not go ahead to suggest them for review. If they are truly better, I'm sure they would incorporate or adopt your approach.
And even if that does not occur, you're still free to add your own regulations on top of the general ones.

I'm not sure what contrary approach you're worried about

The paradigm being used is the problem; even your response above is couched in terms of "your own regulations on top of the general ones."

On environmental issues, ours is a strict Common Law nation, viewing all environmental degradation as acts of theft and/or trespass upon the community. As such, no "regulations" or statutes are necessary or desirable.

So you would rather punish someone for doing something wrong instead of reducing accidents with a few handy suggestions?
I do believe your government may have its priorities mixed or perhaps not fully understand how laws should work. If an issue is important, like this one where entire ecosystems can be put in danger, you shouldn't allow people to gamble with it on their own accord.

[Scow Creek]

So you would rather punish someone for doing something wrong instead of reducing accidents with a few handy suggestions?
I do believe your government may have its priorities mixed or perhaps not fully understand how laws should work. If an issue is important, like this one where entire ecosystems can be put in danger, you shouldn't allow people to gamble with it on their own accord.

My friend, most laws that you take for granted - trespass, assault, wrongful death - are solidly common-law or common-law based. The fact that they are Common Law does make them any less a deterrent, or any less understandable to the general populace than statutes.

In fact, I would argue the opposite: our residents know that if they do anything that impacts someone else, the courts will support a right to restitution, which is a far greater deterrent than (1) expecting that people will know a zillion lines of statutes and regulations and (2) enabling them to avoid responsibility for damages because they technically were within the law.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

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

With the tally standing at 5-1, the region of Anime votes in favor.

[Texan Hotrodders]

Fellow nations of the world, resplendent demagogues, and travelers on the road to a world of peace...

I appreciate that the author of the resolution chose to focus on matters of international importance and respect the capacities of its member states for formulating the more specific policies to be implemented in accomplishing the aims of the resolution. I personally have some concerns that the resolution's focus on international matters ought to be tightened up and its focus on national matters be removed.

That said, my duty is to represent the will of the people of the Federation in the World Assembly and I have cast our nation's vote FOR the resolution in accord with the opinions of the slightly less tiny portion of our population which actually cares about the World Assembly currently.

We held a nationwide referendum as we always do for major policy decisions which affect the entire nation. We invited every resident of voting age to attend, set up polling stations all over the place, set up polling websites for those who cannot physically attend, and provided green tea in recycled cups to all those who chose to exercise their voting rights (by way of a generous donation from a group of non-profit environmentalist organizations).

After tallying the votes, we found that the 2.0% of our population which bothered to vote has chosen by a slight majority (53.5%) to vote FOR the proposed resolution. Many who voted in favor did so out of surprise, wondering out loud, "Where are they suddenly getting smart people to write their legislation?" Many who voted against seemed to misunderstand the resolution, and their objections in most cases seemed to be, "I'll spill whatever I want wherever I want to spill it. Oh God, that tea is hot! Ow! Ow!"

Best of luck to the author in their future legislative endeavors.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tlaloc Blackstone

[Solarmania]

Will someone just repeal this regulation?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Defwa]

Will someone just repeal this regulation?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Be my guest.