[PASSED] Promotion of Recycling

[Jarish Inyo]

Isn't requiring a nation to use taxes for incentives against the WA's non interference on domestic taxation policies. Also, how does the author plan on forcing citizens to recycle if it is mandatory?

[Greifenburg]

Isn't requiring a nation to use taxes for incentives against the WA's non interference on domestic taxation policies. Also, how does the author plan on forcing citizens to recycle if it is mandatory?

"That is what I thought, I'm still trying to get clarification on that point. Also, the proposal doesn't aim to make recycling suddenly mandatory for all citizens of WA member nations, but, as of now since we changed it from "Urges" to "Mandates", to make it mandatory to encourage the participation. If the nation decides to make all recycling mandatory, it has to ensure compliance itself."

[Aclion]

I think that since it is taxes and/or penalization and/or legislation you would be fine, since it means nations wouldn't be required to change tax code to comply.

I'm very skeptical of the concept of "recycling programs that don't recycle anything" anyway. I don't see that as good faith compliance and see no reason you should be expected to legislate for it. If nations are going to violate GAR#2 they'll violate this as well.

[Excidium Planetis]

Isn't requiring a nation to use taxes for incentives against the WA's non interference on domestic taxation policies. Also, how does the author plan on forcing citizens to recycle if it is mandatory?

"Ah, but it does not require nations to use taxes for incentives. The clause reads:

Requires its members to encourage participation of its residents as well as industry and commerce with the means of legislation, incentives and/or penalization;

"Non-tax incentives and penalties can be used. For example, jailing those who refuse to recycle could be used as an encouragement, albeit a draconian one, or offering community service recycling as an alternative criminal penalty might give an incentive to recycle instead of say, a fine or jail time.

"I hope the author is satisfied by this answer. Rest assured Excidium Planetis will cover all legal fees incurred by a Legality Challenge on this proposal."

[Greifenburg]

Isn't requiring a nation to use taxes for incentives against the WA's non interference on domestic taxation policies. Also, how does the author plan on forcing citizens to recycle if it is mandatory?

"Ah, but it does not require nations to use taxes for incentives. The clause reads:

Requires its members to encourage participation of its residents as well as industry and commerce with the means of legislation, incentives and/or penalization;

"Non-tax incentives and penalties can be used. For example, jailing those who refuse to recycle could be used as an encouragement, albeit a draconian one, or offering community service recycling as an alternative criminal penalty might give an incentive to recycle instead of say, a fine or jail time.

"I hope the author is satisfied by this answer. Rest assured Excidium Planetis will cover all legal fees incurred by a Legality Challenge on this proposal."

"Yes, it is quite satisfying. I think the proposal is moving into the right direction. I'm also thankful for all the constructive criticism and support from our fellow ambassadors, such a positive feedback was not anticipated, especially not for our first proposal."

[West Esung]

"Ah, but it does not require nations to use taxes for incentives. The clause reads:

"Non-tax incentives and penalties can be used. For example, jailing those who refuse to recycle could be used as an encouragement, albeit a draconian one, or offering community service recycling as an alternative criminal penalty might give an incentive to recycle instead of say, a fine or jail time.

"I hope the author is satisfied by this answer. Rest assured Excidium Planetis will cover all legal fees incurred by a Legality Challenge on this proposal."

"Yes, it is quite satisfying. I think the proposal is moving into the right direction. I'm also thankful for all the constructive criticism and support from our fellow ambassadors, such a positive feedback was not anticipated, especially not for our first proposal."

Yes I do believe it is going in the right direction. Seems quite smooth. You should probably, however, make the the strength Mild just to make sure you are not forcing this upon... Well... 'Lesser than' nations....

But I would probably support it as long as you add some formatting to make a those clauses look a tad bit nicer and neater.

[Greifenburg]

Yes I do believe it is going in the right direction. Seems quite smooth. You should probably, however, make the the strength Mild just to make sure you are not forcing this upon... Well... 'Lesser than' nations....

But I would probably support it as long as you add some formatting to make a those clauses look a tad bit nicer and neater.

"Environmental Resolutions do not feature traditional strength modifications but affected industries, to my knowledge. In this case, it is manufacturing.

The formatting, however, could be optimized. Suggestions on what we should aim for would be welcome."

[Jarish Inyo]

Isn't requiring a nation to use taxes for incentives against the WA's non interference on domestic taxation policies. Also, how does the author plan on forcing citizens to recycle if it is mandatory?

"Ah, but it does not require nations to use taxes for incentives. The clause reads:

Requires its members to encourage participation of its residents as well as industry and commerce with the means of legislation, incentives and/or penalization;

"Non-tax incentives and penalties can be used. For example, jailing those who refuse to recycle could be used as an encouragement, albeit a draconian one, or offering community service recycling as an alternative criminal penalty might give an incentive to recycle instead of say, a fine or jail time.

"I hope the author is satisfied by this answer. Rest assured Excidium Planetis will cover all legal fees incurred by a Legality Challenge on this proposal."

Those would still require the use of taxes to do so. And again, how would the author or any one propose how one would monitor that everyone is using a mandatory recording program?

[Excidium Planetis]

Those would still require the use of taxes to do so.

"So would establishing a national healthcare system, but it does not appear as if the World Assembly was prohibited from requiring that." Blackbourne retorts. "Nearly everything the World Assembly requires of nations requires taxes to fund, but clearly the World Assembly is not prohibited from mandating anything because of it. The WA has required nations to provide welfare, establish schools, and create inspection teams. Unless you intend to argue that none of those affected national taxes, in which case I would argue that neither would community recycling service affect taxes, clearly the World Assembly regularly requires nations to create programs which may require alterations to their tax codes."

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: JO, there is a difference between mandating a direct tax, which is illegal under GAR#17 and possibly GAR#68, and passing an unfunded mandate. Subordinate governments have to determine how to fund those mandates, and so the WA is not violating any law keeping it from interfering with taxes if those governments choose to use tax money rather than another source of income.

[Greifenburg]

And again, how would the author or any one propose how one would monitor that everyone is using a mandatory recording program?

"As I said before, if the nation choses mandatory participation of their population, than the nation has to monitor and ensure compliance through its own executive and legal means. Which are used exactly is at the discretion of the nation."

OOC: JO, there is a difference between mandating a direct tax, which is illegal under GAR#17 and possibly GAR#68, and passing an unfunded mandate. Subordinate governments have to determine how to fund those mandates, and so the WA is not violating any law keeping it from interfering with taxes if those governments choose to use tax money rather than another source of income.

OOC: Thank you for the clarification. Since the proposal doesn't specify the incentives and penalties, or the funding of those, it should really be save then.

[Aclion]

You know education can be just as(or more) effective as penalization.

[Greifenburg]

You know education can be just as(or more) effective as penalization.

"I recognize the effectiveness of education in this regard, but interference with the curriculum of other nations is something my government would rather avoid. I would be open to add it as a point of advice into the proposal."

[Aclion]

You simply add it in the list of methods nations may use to to comply with clause 3

3. Requires its members to encourage participation of its residents as well as industry and commerce with the means of legislation, education, incentives and/or penalization;

[Greifenburg]

You simply add it in the list of methods nations may use to to comply with clause 3

3. Requires its members to encourage participation of its residents as well as industry and commerce with the means of legislation, education, incentives and/or penalization;

"You're right, I forgot that clause 3 is already lenient thanks to the and/or. The draft has been updated accordingly."

[WA Kitty Kops]

OOC post, and also sorry for typos in advance, I'm not good with typing with this thing.

a) "Recyclable waste material" as a material that can be reprocessed into materials fit for manufacturing;

"Reprocessed", yet not mentioning it comes from manufactured (items sold to consumers) or once-processed-materials (mostly industrial) waste?

b) "Recycling" as a process in which a recyclable waste material is converted into a for production reusable state;

But not actually using it to make new stuff. You're basically requiring that cardboard needs to be collected and cleaned, so it could be treated with chemicals to make new cardboard (or fibre fillings or whatnot) from it, but not that it actully has to be used to make new stuff with it. Also, typo or brainfart before "production".

c) "Salvageable object" as a complex product that can, due to disassembly, yield recyclable materials;

Define - for me, not proposal text - a "complex product". Because quite a few artificial fabrics are very complex products that cannot easily be disassembled into the components (different kinds of plastic) they were made from. That's why it's bloody impossible to recycle non-100% pure natural material clothes as anything but industrial cleaning rags.

a) the introduction of recycling as a means of waste reduction in all member nations in accordance to their technological and economical capabilities;

I think I tried to ask this earlier with the cats, what about nations that already do? You mandate the introduction and implementation, even if the nation already recycled everything. You should add something like "unless these are already in use".

b) the implementation of an easily accessible system for the collection of recyclable materials and salvageable objects in said nations;

RL comparison, please? That sounds like a clumsy way to say it.

3. Requires its members to encourage participation of its residents as well as industry and commerce with the means of legislation, education, incentives and/or penalization;

Moral Decency for mandating personal actions, Environmental for industry. I suggest picking one and sticking to it. You'll make your proposal stronger that way. You could easily do a little rewriting to make this a proper Environmental one.

4. Encourages its members to support the research of new recycling and waste reduction techniques to further reduce waste production.

Again, even if they already recycled everything possible?

[Jarish Inyo]

Those would still require the use of taxes to do so.

"So would establishing a national healthcare system, but it does not appear as if the World Assembly was prohibited from requiring that." Blackbourne retorts. "Nearly everything the World Assembly requires of nations requires taxes to fund, but clearly the World Assembly is not prohibited from mandating anything because of it. The WA has required nations to provide welfare, establish schools, and create inspection teams. Unless you intend to argue that none of those affected national taxes, in which case I would argue that neither would community recycling service affect taxes, clearly the World Assembly regularly requires nations to create programs which may require alterations to their tax codes."

The WA doesn't actually require a member nation to establish a welfare system (the resolution that creates it also makes it possible not to have a welfare system) or build schools. Nor does it require members nations to create inspection teams.

SP, thank you for your explanation.

[Excidium Planetis]

The WA doesn't actually require a member nation to establish a welfare system (the resolution that creates it also makes it possible not to have a welfare system)

Ambassador Blackbourne smacks down a copy of Disability Welfare Act.

DIRECTS nations to create a system, or systems, of welfare to assist those who are disabled;

Nor does it require members nations to create inspection teams.

Blackbourne throws a copy of Workplace Safety Standards Act on top of Disability Welfare Act.

Requires that each nation ensure that within it there exist at least one adequately funded governmental body that inspects work sites and ensures compliance with this act throughout its territory.

"I suggest you read up on World Assembly legislation, Ambassador. Your nation appears to be in noncompliance with at least two resolutions."

[Greifenburg]

This Post is OOC:

a) "Recyclable waste material" as a material that can be reprocessed into materials fit for manufacturing;

"Reprocessed", yet not mentioning it comes from manufactured (items sold to consumers) or once-processed-materials (mostly industrial) waste?

Since "reprocessed" implies previous processing, I didn't think that it had to be mentioned specifically.

b) "Recycling" as a process in which a recyclable waste material is converted into a for production reusable state;

But not actually using it to make new stuff. You're basically requiring that cardboard needs to be collected and cleaned, so it could be treated with chemicals to make new cardboard (or fibre fillings or whatnot) from it, but not that it actully has to be used to make new stuff with it. Also, typo or brainfart before "production".

I never heard of a definition of recycling that included the reuse of the gained resources, but I'll think about including it somewhere else in the resolution since it makes sense to support that too.
As for the "brainfart", please point something like that out more specifically, English is not my native language and I have absolutely now idea what you mean.

c) "Salvageable object" as a complex product that can, due to disassembly, yield recyclable materials;

Define - for me, not proposal text - a "complex product". Because quite a few artificial fabrics are very complex products that cannot easily be disassembled into the components (different kinds of plastic) they were made from. That's why it's bloody impossible to recycle non-100% pure natural material clothes as anything but industrial cleaning rags.

I can see what mean, complex product covers a rather extensive area. I thought mainly of machinery, cars and the like.

a) the introduction of recycling as a means of waste reduction in all member nations in accordance to their technological and economical capabilities;

I think I tried to ask this earlier with the cats, what about nations that already do? You mandate the introduction and implementation, even if the nation already recycled everything. You should add something like "unless these are already in use".

If a nation has those measures, they introduced and implemented it at some point. That's why I thought that those are automatically in compliance.

b) the implementation of an easily accessible system for the collection of recyclable materials and salvageable objects in said nations;

RL comparison, please? That sounds like a clumsy way to say it.

Two examples for collection systems would be
-a collection service that picks it up
-central collection points where people can bring it to

3. Requires its members to encourage participation of its residents as well as industry and commerce with the means of legislation, education, incentives and/or penalization;

Moral Decency for mandating personal actions, Environmental for industry. I suggest picking one and sticking to it. You'll make your proposal stronger that way. You could easily do a little rewriting to make this a proper Environmental one.

I suppose I got carried away on that point. Although measures like recycling are normally utilized by all three, and not just residents or industry/commerce. I'll think about this.

4. Encourages its members to support the research of new recycling and waste reduction techniques to further reduce waste production.

Again, even if they already recycled everything possible?

If some nation recycles everything, they won't have to do this. It's only encouraged anyway, and not mandated. I could add another encouragement to distribute such technology. Dunno how sensible that is.

[Excidium Planetis]

b) "Recycling" as a process in which a recyclable waste material is converted into a for production reusable state;

Also, typo or brainfart before "production".

As for the "brainfart", please point something like that out more specifically, English is not my native language and I have absolutely now idea what you mean.

OOC:
English is not Ara's first language either (He's Finnish), and I believe that is to blame for the misunderstanding. Araraukar is referring to the "for" before production, which looks out of place. I believe you mean "into a for production state" as in "into a state that is for production", in which case you should use "for-production" to indicate that it is part of an adjective and not a preposition.

[Greifenburg]

OOC:
English is not Ara's first language either (He's Finnish), and I believe that is to blame for the misunderstanding. Araraukar is referring to the "for" before production, which looks out of place. I believe you mean "into a for production state" as in "into a state that is for production", in which case you should use "for-production" to indicate that it is part of an adjective and not a preposition.

OOC: You're right, I meant "into a state that is (reusable) for production". I'll fix it with the next update of the proposal.

[Greifenburg]

"The draft has been updated in accordance to some concerns, including the usage of recycled materials."

[Greifenburg]

"While I recognize that many are busy discussing abortion rights, I would like to invite more opinions here. It is important to collect as many viewpoints as possible. So please feel free to join the discussion."

[States of Glory WA Office]

3. Requires its members to encourage participation in recycling and the usage of through recycling recovered materials with the means of legislation, incentives and/or penalization;

Neville: The usage of what, Ambassador?

Fairburn: Speaking of recycling, was the paper that this proposal was written on recycled?

[The Islands of Versilia]

"I, as ambassador of Versilia to the WA, fully support this draft. The lack of recycling in the world is most troubling, and whilst it is compulsory in my home country and the one which I represent in this organisation, I believe it must be promoted everywhere. Supported." Confidently states the Versilian ambassador.