[PASSED] Wetland Protection Protocol

[Wallenburg]

"Ambassador, how does the WHAMMO plan to enforce its decisions as to the best management practices?"

"The same way all WA committees derive their power: through the gnomes."

"And will these gnomes have police powers?"

[Separatist Peoples]

And will these gnomes have police powers?"

"No more than the ITSC gnomes have. They have an excellent track record."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Parsons says 'WA gnomes are incompetent buffoons. Council workmen are more efficient than the gnomes'.

[Separatist Peoples]

Parsons says 'WA gnomes are incompetent buffoons. Council workmen are more efficient than the gnomes'.

"We'll name the gnomes Council Workmen, then."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Parsons says 'WA gnomes are incompetent buffoons. Council workmen are more efficient than the gnomes'.

"We'll name the gnomes Council Workmen, then."

OOC: I bet I could pass a repeal that includes something along those lines... I can see it now, 'Believing that World Assembly experts may not be the best to deal with the issues facing a local area due to their lack of training and knowledge of the local area's context and climate'... 'Certain that national experts are better suited to dealing with environmental issues due to their greater knowledge of their nation's specific ecological issues and problems'.

Parsons: We don't like the formatting. However, we are ambivalent about the proposal. Currently, we neither support or oppose, though, we are distrustful of any World Assembly committee on ecological affairs or what-not.

[Separatist Peoples]

"We'll name the gnomes Council Workmen, then."

OOC: I bet I could pass a repeal that includes something along those lines... I can see it now, 'Believing that World Assembly experts may not be the best to deal with the issues facing a local area due to their lack of training and knowledge of the local area's context and climate'... 'Certain that national experts are better suited to dealing with environmental issues due to their greater knowledge of their nation's specific ecological issues and problems'.

Parsons: We don't like the formatting. However, we are ambivalent about the proposal. Currently, we neither support or oppose, though, we are distrustful of any World Assembly committee on ecological affairs or what-not.

"But, Parsons, we've just upgraded to active voice! Purely in an attempt to save space, of course."

OOC: Considering the committee liaises with experts on exactly that subject, such a repeal argument would be fairly disingenuous. In the US, similar permitting experts can learn everything they need to learn, as a baseline, in one week of training and regular consultation of USACE Region Supplements. The details are small: in some places, the presence of crayfish tubes counts as a hydrological indicator, while in others it does not, but they are not intensive requirements. Moreover, those national experts that are experts are already required to liaise with WHAMMO, so even if the gnomes were not appropriately trained, they could verse themselves on the requirements sufficiently. And this assumes that the gnomes are not infallible experts, which, for roleplay purposes, we generally accept. If we did not, every proposal would have to be full of minutae that cannot make it underneath the 3,500 character limit.

In short, such a repeal argument would be incredibly shitty to use, bordering right up on falsehood.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Considering the committee liaises with experts on exactly that subject, such a repeal argument would be fairly disingenuous. In the US, similar permitting experts can learn everything they need to learn, as a baseline, in one week of training and regular consultation of USACE Region Supplements. The details are small: in some places, the presence of crayfish tubes counts as a hydrological indicator, while in others it does not, but they are not intensive requirements. Moreover, those national experts that are experts are already required to liaise with WHAMMO, so even if the gnomes were not appropriately trained, they could verse themselves on the requirements sufficiently. And this assumes that the gnomes are not infallible experts, which, for roleplay purposes, we generally accept. If we did not, every proposal would have to be full of minutae that cannot make it underneath the 3,500 character limit.

It isn't false. It's simply stating a belief. Now, if it referenced a committee mentioned in the resolution or the resolution's text, then there's a possibility of falsehood. But if you are simply stating a belief, absent clear contextualisation to a resolution, then you don't have any chance of being incorrect.

[Separatist Peoples]

It isn't false. It's simply stating a belief. Now, if it referenced a committee mentioned in the resolution or the resolution's text, then there's a possibility of falsehood. But if you are simply stating a belief, absent clear contextualisation to a resolution, then you don't have any chance of being incorrect.

OOC: I could say it's my belief that NAPA makes corporal punishment of minors compulsory. That doesn't make it true no matter how much I believe it. Such a belief would have to ignore evidence to the contrary, and using it in a repeal would be intellectually dishonest, no matter how you couch it in belief.

That's the kind of low grade prevarication and distortion that pisses people off and drives off honest players. It fosters a questionable ethical precedent that is not healthy for the forum community.

[Imperium Anglorum]

It isn't false. It's simply stating a belief. Now, if it referenced a committee mentioned in the resolution or the resolution's text, then there's a possibility of falsehood. But if you are simply stating a belief, absent clear contextualisation to a resolution, then you don't have any chance of being incorrect.

OOC: I could say it's my belief that NAPA makes corporal punishment of minors compulsory. That doesn't make it true no matter how much I believe it. Such a belief would have to ignore evidence to the contrary, and using it in a repeal would be intellectually dishonest, no matter how you couch it in belief.

That would be false, since NAPA doesn't do that. But, if you said that corporal punishment of minors is bad and should not be compulsory, you're in the clear.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I could say it's my belief that NAPA makes corporal punishment of minors compulsory. That doesn't make it true no matter how much I believe it. Such a belief would have to ignore evidence to the contrary, and using it in a repeal would be intellectually dishonest, no matter how you couch it in belief.

That would be false, since NAPA doesn't do that. But, if you said that corporal punishment of minors is bad and should not be compulsory, you're in the clear.

OOC: And including that reasoning in a repeal of NAPA would be intellectually disingenuous because it's false. You're proving my point.

[Imperium Anglorum]

That would be false, since NAPA doesn't do that. But, if you said that corporal punishment of minors is bad and should not be compulsory, you're in the clear.

OOC: And including that reasoning in a repeal of NAPA would be intellectually disingenuous. You're proving my point.

That's because it's quite irrelevant. On the other hand, the inefficacy of WA committees is quite relevant.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: And including that reasoning in a repeal of NAPA would be intellectually disingenuous. You're proving my point.

That's because it's quite irrelevant. On the other hand, the inefficacy of WA committees is quite relevant.

OOC: Committees staffed by gnomes, who are held to be legion, incorruptible, and nigh infallible for the very reasons I already pointed out: because otherwise, every committee would have to be the subject of ridiculous minutiae, such as hiring standards, internal procedure, continuing education training, departmental oversight, and so on. We could create three times as many resolutions as have currently been written just keeping up with all the issues of committee competence and integrity. This is unreasonable. It undermines the entire GA section of the game to insist on these standards, and ignores a decade of precedent on how committees are treated in the game. To make such an argument when you already know this is entirely against the spirit of the game, and is absolutely not intellectually honest. It would be a harm to the community of the GA to pursue repeals of otherwise reasonable proposals based on an issue that doesn't actually exist in the forum-accepted canon, and it would be a shitty, dishonest thing to do.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: El bump. Things are slow. Maybe this won't get massacred.

[Araraukar]

OOC: El bump. Things are slow. Maybe this won't get massacred.

OOC: *checks if I've done a vivisection* No? How odd. I'll try to get it to bleed within the next couple of days, but can't promise it'll be a massacre.

[Imperium Anglorum]

PARSONS: If wetlands mattered all that much, there would be a market to save them. There isn't a market to save them, therefore, they don't matter all that much. We oppose this legislation.

OOC: I did say that Parsons was a liberal. He's also from a coal-burning industrial society. Wetlands and the environment writ large, from an RP standpoint, are probably the thing my nation would care least about.

[Bakhton]

"We support this resolution as written."

[Separatist Peoples]

PARSONS: If wetlands mattered all that much, there would be a market to save them. There isn't a market to save them, therefore, they don't matter all that much. We oppose this legislation.

OOC: I did say that Parsons was a liberal. He's also from a coal-burning industrial society. Wetlands and the environment writ large, from an RP standpoint, are probably the thing my nation would care least about.

"Ambassador, wetlands provide services that are far more expensive to manually provide, especially at your technological level. The alternative is a vast number of dykes and flooding countermeasures, man-made water purification, artificial stocking of freshwater bodies of both fowl and fish, and lets not forget marsh mallow! If you value dry streets and plentiful hunting, you'd be acting to preserve your wetlands. I have you pegged as a fowl hunter, for some reason. Fox, too, but that's not wetland-dependent! Besides, it's much more expensive to extract coal in wet conditions. You'd be better off by far mining elsewhere."

[Aclion]

PARSONS: If wetlands mattered all that much, there would be a market to save them. There isn't a market to save them

"Speak for yourself. We have the largest contiguous areas of unspoiled wetland in our region and it's entirely privately managed."

"A small nitpick if i may. I'm concerned that the reference to transnational migratory species may act as a barrier to future resolutions on that topic, particularity with regard to habitat protection and- wait... "marshmellows'?"

[Separatist Peoples]

PARSONS: If wetlands mattered all that much, there would be a market to save them. There isn't a market to save them

"Speak for yourself. We have the largest contiguous areas of unspoiled wetland in our region and it's entirely privately managed."

"A small nitpick if i may. I'm concerned that the reference to transnational migratory species may act as a barrier to future resolutions on that topic, particularity with regard to habitat protection and- wait... "marshmellows'?"

"The international migratory species was preambulatory, and not operative, and the topic has been legislated on in the form of GAR#290. Your concern is doubly addressed. Althaea officinalis is a species of hydrophytic, herbaceous plant that is found, between 67% and 99% of the time, in wetlands. It's root has historically been the base for the confection known as a marshmallow. Protecting the wetlands protects a necessary ingredient in high-quality hot cocoa."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Speak for yourself. We have the largest contiguous areas of unspoiled wetland in our region and it's entirely privately managed."

"A small nitpick if i may. I'm concerned that the reference to transnational migratory species may act as a barrier to future resolutions on that topic, particularity with regard to habitat protection and- wait... "marshmellows'?"

"The international migratory species was preambulatory, and not operative, and the topic has been legislated on in the form of GAR#290. Your concern is doubly addressed. Althaea officinalis is a species of hydrophytic, herbaceous plant that is found, between 67% and 99% of the time, in wetlands. It's root has historically been the base for the confection known as a marshmallow. Protecting the wetlands protects a necessary ingredient in high-quality hot cocoa."

Steph levels her eyes at Parsons and raises one brow.

"Not to pile on, Cyril, but what on earth would you eat with all that champagne if you let your oyster habitats die? There is more beneath the water and muck than is dreamt of in your economics," she finishes with a grin.

[The Second Moon Rising]

The Riser delegate sits up in surprise. "... Other nations do not know the joys of a true marsh mallow confection..? This must be rec--" It pauses, then clears its throat. "... Wetlands are, indeed, vital for pollution control and for the myriad resources they provide. This one would vote favorably for the proposal if it makes it to quorum."




OOC: Ohmygosh have you ever had a real marshmallow? They don't hold up in the fire when you're making s'mores, but they're like little ethereally soft pillows of deliciousness...

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Not to pile on, Cyril, but what on earth would you eat with all that champagne if you let your oyster habitats die? There is more beneath the water and muck than is dreamt of in your economics," she finishes with a grin.

PARSONS: Not all the oyster habitats will die because there is still demand for oysters. They have economic value, and therefore, firms will sue based on a liability-based conception of the law to protect oyster hatcheries. We've been endeavouring to reduce transaction costs in legal filings for quite some time. However it is, the penchant for various peoples in recent times to give practically all credit to government for environmental affairs is unsettling.

"Ambassador, wetlands provide services that are far more expensive to manually provide, especially at your technological level. The alternative is a vast number of dykes and flooding countermeasures, man-made water purification, artificial stocking of freshwater bodies of both fowl and fish, and lets not forget marsh mallow! If you value dry streets and plentiful hunting, you'd be acting to preserve your wetlands. I have you pegged as a fowl hunter, for some reason. Fox, too, but that's not wetland-dependent! Besides, it's much more expensive to extract coal in wet conditions. You'd be better off by far mining elsewhere."

PARSONS: All of those things would be provided by the market if they were demanded.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Not to pile on, Cyril, but what on earth would you eat with all that champagne if you let your oyster habitats die? There is more beneath the water and muck than is dreamt of in your economics," she finishes with a grin.

PARSONS: Not all the oyster habitats will die because there is still demand for oysters. They have economic value, and therefore, firms will sue based on a liability-based conception of the law to protect oyster hatcheries. We've been endeavouring to reduce transaction costs in legal filings for quite some time. However it is, the penchant for various peoples in recent times to give practically all credit to government for environmental affairs is unsettling.

"That presumes that the pollutants have an interest in the oysters, though. Or that the ones with an interest in the health of the wetlands and the ones with an interest in the market are the same. If Bigtopia has an interest in developing wetlands, and the C.D.S.P. has an interest in the preventative flooding benefits that those wetlands, in Bigtopia, offer, the market will not necessarily benefit the protection of the wetland, regardless of the benefits they offer.

"The issues with relying on legal liability for environmental impacts are myriad. First, there is a distinct question of discerning the appropriate defendant when a resource or environment is harmed from multiple sources. That difficulty translates to prohibitively high costs in not only prosecuting, but against the businesses in defending against such suits. There is also the difficulty of identifying an appropriate plaintiff. It would be a simple thing for a government to limit, with totally innocent intentions, standing for such suits to those parties directly impacted, even though the vast majority of harms for environmental degradation is not direct. There is also the question as to whether a state even has an appropriate civil law system to handle such cases. Calculating damages for environmental harm would be pure speculation, which could exclude restitution that requires a concrete harm.The full scope of harm might not be known for decades, well after the suit is finished, which questions whether either party could be adequately punished or compensated. Ultimately, none of this protects the environment, as payment of liability suits are ultimately reactive, and not effectively proactive, in a situation where proactive protection is not only beneficial, but essential to the survival of the resource. That's like suing a party for killing the last white rhino: once the defensive mechanism kicks in, it's too late to save the rhino.

"I could go on. Environmental torts serve a place, but not on broad policy."

"Ambassador, wetlands provide services that are far more expensive to manually provide, especially at your technological level. The alternative is a vast number of dykes and flooding countermeasures, man-made water purification, artificial stocking of freshwater bodies of both fowl and fish, and lets not forget marsh mallow! If you value dry streets and plentiful hunting, you'd be acting to preserve your wetlands. I have you pegged as a fowl hunter, for some reason. Fox, too, but that's not wetland-dependent! Besides, it's much more expensive to extract coal in wet conditions. You'd be better off by far mining elsewhere."

PARSONS: All of those things would be provided by the market if they were demanded.[/quote]

"Clean water is always in general demand. There is no market demand because nature supplies it for free at the moment.

"There is also no market demand for other topics that society nonetheless derives benefit from. The market very well may benefit from individuals not having various rights, such as the right to an impartial trial, but we nonetheless have a vested interest in ensuring that nations do not oppress individuals by that exclusion. Indeed, society has an interest in reducing armed conflict, while there might be a market interest in favor of maintaining constant, low-intensity shooting conflicts to boost arms sales and resource demand. Market demand is not a useful tool for determining value in all circumstances. I will happily defer to your economic judgment on a number of topics, but environmental protection is definitively not one of them."

[Imperium Anglorum]

That's like suing a party for killing the last white rhino: once the defensive mechanism kicks in, it's too late to save the rhino.

PARSONS: The rhino, then, was better off dead. However it is, we think that people have an obligation to destroy the environment anyway. The environment is the primary killer of humans. All parts of the environment should be replaced with something that humans directly control.

"Clean water is always in general demand. There is no market demand because nature supplies it for free at the moment.

PARSONS: That isn't the case. The reason people built sewers, water purification plants, and other things are because there is a demand for them. While in many nations, these are municipal utilities, they do not necessarily have to be so. And if your city is itself a corporation, then that isn't a problem either. In the United Commonwealth, the government of London, excepting those under the direct administration of Parliament, is run entirely by the corporate body of the City of London.

[Whovian Tardisia]

6. Obligates member states require projects to include pre-construction environmental reports detailing the potential all possible impacts to wetlands

"We find this wording rather confusing; we suggest that Ambassador Bell clarify this statement."

Love that acronym.