[PASSED] Toxic Heavy Metals Act

[Vancouvia]

Good.

We here in Vancouvia feel Mercury should be left alone and any attempts to legislate on it in any form will be rejected

[Separatist Peoples]

Well, we see no reason to oppose this as our use of mercury is minimal at best.

Well, stuff like bioaccumulation of mercury in aquatic animals in oceans affects everybody's environment/economy.

Anwyay, I sent out over a hundred telegrams, of which 86 got through, so I'm sitting on my hands a bit for the moment to see how many people respond with approvals.

Has anyone made a mercury the planet pun yet on this thread

No, not yet. I'm still waiting for someone to inevitably make a "Convention on Venus" joke proposal, though.

"So long as nobody tries to regulate Uranus, I think you have little to fear."

[John Turner]

We here in Vancouvia feel Mercury should be left alone and any attempts to legislate on it in any form will be rejected

Well... We here in The Federation do believe it should be legislated upon. Unfortunately this is not the proposal to do it.

In one instance we have:

Noting that mercury and its compounds are extremely toxic and can cause:
impaired neurological development and function
respiratory problems
organ failure
immune system dysfunction
death

All BAD!

Yet what do we have to counteract it?

2. Urges nations to research alternatives to, reduce the use of, and where technologically feasible, phase out the use of mercury and its compounds in applications including but not limited to:
medicine (including dental amalgams)
small-scale gold/silver mining
mercury barometers and thermometers
batteries and electrodes
thermostats and other mercury switches
fluorescent and mercury vapour lamps

All in all what we have here is a toothless feel good waste of time, that will inevitably be repealed should it pass. Instead of a a great resolution that this could have been, it was rushed for some reason. As it stand The Federation is opposed to this, and will repeal it should it pass (on it name alone).

[Atomic Utopia]

Has anyone made a mercury the planet pun yet on this thread

No, not yet. I'm still waiting for someone to inevitably make a "Convention on Venus" joke proposal, though.

I was thinking of your comment and I realised that by not capitalizing mercury at all during the proposal you cannot viably argue that it is indeed a planet that you are referring to as that would break grammar conventions. Instead you could claim it is a certain genus of fungi that you are referring to, but thankfully fungi do not make compounds, so that argument can be discarded.

Damn, unless I go the "all efforts are unreasonable and the other two clauses did not demand it" it seems like this is pretty bulletproof.

We here in Vancouvia feel Mercury should be left alone and any attempts to legislate on it in any form will be rejected

Well... We here in The Federation do believe it should be legislated upon. Unfortunately this is not the proposal to do it.

In one instance we have:

Noting that mercury and its compounds are extremely toxic and can cause:
impaired neurological development and function
respiratory problems
organ failure
immune system dysfunction
death

All BAD!

Yet what do we have to counteract it?

2. Urges nations to research alternatives to, reduce the use of, and where technologically feasible, phase out the use of mercury and its compounds in applications including but not limited to:
medicine (including dental amalgams)
small-scale gold/silver mining
mercury barometers and thermometers
batteries and electrodes
thermostats and other mercury switches
fluorescent and mercury vapour lamps

All in all what we have here is a toothless feel good waste of time, that will inevitably be repealed should it pass. Instead of a a great resolution that this could have been, it was rushed for some reason. As it stand The Federation is opposed to this, and will repeal it should it pass (on it name alone).

The nicely italicized part of your sentence seems to be a fragment and grammatically unsound.

Oh, and you have also been... selective on the matter regarding which clauses you state are a problem, it does have some teeth, and mandates safe disposal, which is reasonable. Anything else would be a tad bit much in the overreach department as mercury, while toxic, can do many good and effective things that cannot just be wiped away in a few words... well if you subscribe to logic anyway.

[John Turner]

I also believe we have a category violation here:

Environmental - A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
Example: GA#63 – Protection of Outer Space Act

Precisely what it sounds like. Any Environmental resolution will cause a hit to your industries while improving the environment. Any proposal written for this category should preferably talk about industry having to somehow pay for environmental improvements. Of course, this could be abstracted by saying that the government taxes industry more to implement an environmental plan of some kind. Environmental resolutions affect one of the following Industry Areas: Automobile Manufacturing, Uranium Mining, Woodchipping [EDIT 17/02/2014] Automotive, Mining, Logging, the new areas of Manufacturing, Agriculture or Fishing, or All Businesses

I don't see industry taking a hit here. In fact I see R&D industries actually booming from this. The only mandatory clause in the whole thing deals with educating the public.

[Wrapper]

I am all for mild reductions. Flat out wholesale bans? Hell no.

We do wish you'd make up your mind.

[Wrapper]

OOC: And, Kaboom. Once again. I told you to be patient. But, no. Then again, as I said, it's your proposal.

[Kaboomlandia]

I also believe we have a category violation here:

Environmental - A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
Example: GA#63 – Protection of Outer Space Act

Precisely what it sounds like. Any Environmental resolution will cause a hit to your industries while improving the environment. Any proposal written for this category should preferably talk about industry having to somehow pay for environmental improvements. Of course, this could be abstracted by saying that the government taxes industry more to implement an environmental plan of some kind. Environmental resolutions affect one of the following Industry Areas: Automobile Manufacturing, Uranium Mining, Woodchipping [EDIT 17/02/2014] Automotive, Mining, Logging, the new areas of Manufacturing, Agriculture or Fishing, or All Businesses

I don't see industry taking a hit here. In fact I see R&D industries actually booming from this. The only mandatory clause in the whole thing deals with educating the public.

Well, industries are going to take a hit due to having to find alternatives to mercury in their production. As well, having to follow more stringent disposal standards will cause industries to suffer slightly.

[John Turner]

I am all for mild reductions. Flat out wholesale bans? Hell no.

We do wish you'd make up your mind.

The problem is this doesn't actually reduce anything. All it mandates is that nations tell their population that "mercury is bad", and tell them not to pour it down the drain. As I said, toothless.

Well, industries are going to take a hit due to having to find alternatives to mercury in their production. As well, having to follow more stringent disposal standards will cause industries to suffer slightly.

That's bullshit and you know it. Nowhere in this proposal does it state that nations are required to find alternatives. They are urged to, but when it comes down to the all might dollar, well you know how it goes....

[Ferret Civilization]

The problem is this doesn't actually reduce anything. All it mandates is that nations tell their population that "mercury is bad", and tell them not to pour it down the drain. As I said, toothless.

"It's more than there was before though."

[John Turner]

The problem is this doesn't actually reduce anything. All it mandates is that nations tell their population that "mercury is bad", and tell them not to pour it down the drain. As I said, toothless.

"It's more than there was before though."

Not really. Before it was flat out bans. That is a bit much. As I stated here I would support commercial bans, whilst leaving military applications alone. This doesn't even do that.

I can guarantee you, that if this even gets to vote, Kaboomlandia's own region will vote against it.

[Kaboomlandia]

"It's more than there was before though."

Not really. Before it was flat out bans. That is a bit much. As I stated here I would support commercial bans, whilst leaving military applications alone. This doesn't even do that.

It went from flat-out banning, to toothless, to this, which is a bit of a compromise.

I can guarantee you, that if this even gets to vote, Kaboomlandia's own region will vote against it.

I hold one vote on this, and Europeia isn't totally immune to lemming votes, either. Who knows, if enough people vote "Aye" on this, maybe this has a chance.
Anyways, this appears to be picking up some steam. 14 approvals in four hours without being on the front page. Three or four illegal proposals are in front of it, so once those get nuked, this should be more visible.

[John Turner]

Not really. Before it was flat out bans. That is a bit much. As I stated here I would support commercial bans, whilst leaving military applications alone. This doesn't even do that.

It went from flat-out banning, to toothless, to this, which is a bit of a compromise.

No this is a rush to get a badge. What was the hurry? No one was threatening this, as most of us don't even care about the subject.

I hold one vote on this, and Europeia isn't totally immune to lemming votes, either.

Yeah okayyyyyy.... In case you haven't noticed I am also a member of that region, and routinely vote on proposals there as well. Europeia is probably the most NatSov region out there, and routinely votes against pretty much everything.

[Wrapper]

We do wish you'd make up your mind.

The problem is this doesn't actually reduce anything. All it mandates is that nations tell their population that "mercury is bad", and tell them not to pour it down the drain. As I said, toothless.

Fair point.

OOC: For the record I'm not very happy with this, and not just because my name is on it. I gave Kaboom the benefit of the doubt, considering that he's come a long way from the days when he was badge-hunting and proposing oodles of ridiculous proposals. This looked like it had promise, so, I figured I'd cut him a break, correct all the scientific terminology, fix the health effects, suggest other areas of reduction, and grammar-Nazi the whole thing. I could have gone further... but then it would have been more like a Wrapper-with-contributions-from-Kaboomlandia proposal instead of the other way around. So, I warned Kaboom, more than once, to take some time, get it right, wait for input, and it didn't happen. And, frankly, I'm kind of embarrassed.

Kaboom, my LAST piece of advice. Withdraw this. Wait for more input, from people like JT -- as much as you two dislike each other, his criticism is valid more often than not (though I disagree with him on the category violation), then wait for some more input, before moving forward. Solicit opinions from people who know this stuff (I did solicit comment from someone else like me who's got a little environmental expertise but it hasn't been posted yet). Then, once there is some kind of consensus, that's the time to submit it and give it a shot. Hell, my own resolution took nearly two months, with ten pages of comments before it was submitted. You've spent what, a week and a half on this? And on something that's a lot more technical than child pornography.

PATIENCE.

[Atomic Utopia]

"It's more than there was before though."

Not really. Before it was flat out bans. That is a bit much. As I stated here I would support commercial bans, whilst leaving military applications alone. This doesn't even do that.

I can guarantee you, that if this even gets to vote, Kaboomlandia's own region will vote against it.

Time to break out the propaganda machine with the goal of lemming-ing the voter base this time I see.

Well let me help you considering your last very nearly made my eyes bleed.

{url=proposal URL}Kaboomlandia has recently submitted a proposal regarding mercury and it's various chemical compounds. {/url} While well meaning and containing no major grammatical errors it also has numerous flaws. Chief among them being it's profound lack of "teeth".

You see, despite it's own admission on the horrible effects of mercury it does not prevent it from being used in dangerous and easily replaceable ways, only asking kindly for replacement to be conducted, nothing more. Thus the proposal as a whole would only serve to block the further development of the issue.

Thank you for voting against the Convention on Mercury

So here, use this, your last ones made me, as stated before, cringe. At least this one might look decent and not cause quite as much cringing. And yes, I would like this to be retracted and altered to be a bit more strict, drafting is not a rush.

[Kaboomlandia]

GHR filed to yank this. I admit it - I was hasty.

[Atomic Utopia]

GHR filed to yank this. I admit it - I was hasty.

Thank you, hopefully this can be improved and altered to make it better, namely a few more regulations on use.

[John Turner]

{url=proposal URL}Kaboomlandia has recently submitted a proposal regarding mercury and it's various chemical compounds. {/url} While well meaning and containing no major grammatical errors it also has numerous flaws. Chief among them being it's profound lack of "teeth".

You see, despite it's own admission on the horrible effects of mercury it does not prevent it from being used in dangerous and easily replaceable ways, only asking kindly for replacement to be conducted, nothing more. Thus the proposal as a whole would only serve to block the further development of the issue.

Thank you for voting against the Convention on Mercury

So here, use this, your last ones made me, as stated before, cringe. At least this one might look decent and not cause quite as much cringing. And yes, I would like this to be retracted and altered to be a bit more strict, drafting is not a rush.

What are you babbling about. That is not my telegram. Tinfect can assure you as I just sent him a telegram, not to counter-campaign as all it does its piss off delegates. Why in the hell would I send one out, and yet tell someone else that it fucks things up? I suggest you do some investigative work before you go throwing accusations around.

GHR filed to yank this. I admit it - I was hasty.

You have made a very wise, and very mature decision. I applaud you for it.

[Kaboomlandia]

You have made a very wise, and very mature decision. I applaud you for it.

No need to applaud me yet. I made a mistake submitting it too early, and I appreciate that you brought its flaws to my attention.

[Atomic Utopia]

What are you babbling about. That is not my telegram. Tinfect can assure you as I just sent him a telegram, not to counter-campaign as all it does its piss off delegates. Why in the hell would I send one out, and yet tell someone else that it fucks things up? I suggest you do some investigative work before you go throwing accusations around.

That was a TG of my own creation as a suggestion that your propaganda could be improved. admittedly in a somewhat sarcastic matter.

I know that that was not your own creation because I created it as a suggestion. I am sorry if I angered you.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Parsons: Since we're back to commenting... First, I believe the subject of the resolution should be expanded from simply elemental mercury to include methylmercury, which according to my science advisors is the main trouble with mercury and bioaccumulation.

Second, I feel that a greater emphasis should be put on the prevention of bioaccumulation in international waters and the atmosphere, since, according to my science advisors, much of these issues arise from fish and the absorption of mercury in the air into the oceans. This is an area where the World Assembly can do real good. Solutions here range from bans, cap-and-trade, to what Ambassador Turner rightfully pointed out was a toothless idea. My science advisors state that many governments already issue food consumption warnings and take regulatory action against release of chemicals into the sea.

[Wrapper]

Parsons: Since we're back to commenting... First, I believe the subject of the resolution should be expanded from simply elemental mercury to include methylmercury, which according to my science advisors is the main trouble with mercury and bioaccumulation.

Seems to us, Parsons, that you are misinterpreting both the proposal and your science advisors. One, the proposal covers mercury and its compounds, which would include organometallic mercury, inorganic mercury and other chemicals, not just elemental mercury. Two, when discharged into aquatic ecosystems, mercury compounds, including slightly less toxic forms such as inorganic mercury compounds, are converted to the more toxic methylmercury, which then bioaccumulates throughout the food chain. So obviously, the way to eliminate the bioaccumulation of methylmercury is to eliminate the discharge of all mercury compounds, not just the most toxic ones.

OOC: Edited. Gah, even I didn't get the biochemistry quite right the first time around.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Parsons: Since we're back to commenting... First, I believe the subject of the resolution should be expanded from simply elemental mercury to include methylmercury, which according to my science advisors is the main trouble with mercury and bioaccumulation.

Seems to us, Parsons, that you are misinterpreting both the proposal and your science advisors. One, the proposal covers mercury and its compounds, which would include organometallic mercury, inorganic mercury and other chemicals, not just elemental mercury. Two, when discharged into aquatic ecosystems, mercury compounds, including slightly less toxic forms such as inorganic mercury compounds, are converted to the more toxic methylmercury, which then bioaccumulates throughout the food chain. So obviously, the way to eliminate the bioaccumulation of methylmercury is to eliminate the discharge of all mercury compounds, not just the most toxic ones.

OOC: Edited. Gah, even I didn't get the biochemistry quite right the first time around.

OOC: That's what the second paragraph of my response... says.

[Wrapper]

Seems to us, Parsons, that you are misinterpreting both the proposal and your science advisors. One, the proposal covers mercury and its compounds, which would include organometallic mercury, inorganic mercury and other chemicals, not just elemental mercury. Two, when discharged into aquatic ecosystems, mercury compounds, including slightly less toxic forms such as inorganic mercury compounds, are converted to the more toxic methylmercury, which then bioaccumulates throughout the food chain. So obviously, the way to eliminate the bioaccumulation of methylmercury is to eliminate the discharge of all mercury compounds, not just the most toxic ones.

OOC: Edited. Gah, even I didn't get the biochemistry quite right the first time around.

OOC: That's what the second paragraph of my response... says.

OOC: Okay, but your first paragraph was incorrect. I corrected it.

[Kaboomlandia]

Parsons: Since we're back to commenting... First, I believe the subject of the resolution should be expanded from simply elemental mercury to include methylmercury, which according to my science advisors is the main trouble with mercury and bioaccumulation.

Second, I feel that a greater emphasis should be put on the prevention of bioaccumulation in international waters and the atmosphere, since, according to my science advisors, much of these issues arise from fish and the absorption of mercury in the air into the oceans. This is an area where the World Assembly can do real good. Solutions here range from bans, cap-and-trade, to what Ambassador Turner rightfully pointed out was a toothless idea. My science advisors state that many governments already issue food consumption warnings and take regulatory action against release of chemicals into the sea.

OOC: Yeah, I've been doing some reading on cap-and-trade systems, and I could see something like that for mercury emissions. While the penalties in the short term might seem stiff, they will decrease as companies innovate and reduce emissions. I could see that working.