[PASSED] Restrictions on Hydraulic Fracturing

[United Massachusetts]

I hate to break your bubble, but what we have here is a failure to understand complex language expressions. The current wording (which is the wording that will come up for a vote) is "Prohibits the practice of hydraulic fracturing in all areas of World Assembly member-states which are in or within close range of land inhabited by populations of sapient beings, to the extent that the practice ..."

You see that bold part isn't a limiter because as a limiter it is backwards, effectively banning fracking until it becomes a real threat which is just plain stupid. (Permits fracking to the extent ... would be logical but that's not the wording.) Since it is a ban ... to the extent ... the extent either becomes descriptive or downright dangerous and the reasonable nation theory would discard the later immediately.

Prohibits the practice of hydraulic fracturing in all areas of World Assembly member-states which are in or within close range of land inhabited by populations of sapient beings, to the extent that the practice:

A. poses a demonstrably significant threat of contamination thereto,
B. harms the water resources demonstrably neccessary to ensure the health of local communities,
C. and/or poses significant risk of other strongly detrimental health effects, according to the World Health Authority, to said populations of sapient beings.

You forget prohibit has two meanings... formally forbid (something) by law, rule, or other authority: "laws prohibiting cruelty to animals" synonyms: forbid, ban, bar, interdict, proscribe, ... antonyms: permit, authorize.

So in a mannerism, you can claim he has forbidden it. However in the sentence above, Prohibit is used more as an antonym and not a synonym.
Though it is meant to ban it, according to the above. Unless it does not affect the above, allowing a prohibition and it to be translated in any manner. However thing is, while it illegalizes fracking under certain conditions. It still allows it to be legal and this is stated by the maker. Meaning, we are reading prohibit wrong within the meaning of it.

I'm sorry, you've entirely lost me

[Principality of the Raix]

Prohibits the practice of hydraulic fracturing in all areas of World Assembly member-states which are in or within close range of land inhabited by populations of sapient beings, to the extent that the practice:

A. poses a demonstrably significant threat of contamination thereto,
B. harms the water resources demonstrably neccessary to ensure the health of local communities,
C. and/or poses significant risk of other strongly detrimental health effects, according to the World Health Authority, to said populations of sapient beings.

You forget prohibit has two meanings... formally forbid (something) by law, rule, or other authority: "laws prohibiting cruelty to animals" synonyms: forbid, ban, bar, interdict, proscribe, ... antonyms: permit, authorize.

So in a mannerism, you can claim he has forbidden it. However in the sentence above, Prohibit is used more as an antonym and not a synonym.
Though it is meant to ban it, according to the above. Unless it does not affect the above, allowing a prohibition and it to be translated in any manner. However thing is, while it illegalizes fracking under certain conditions. It still allows it to be legal and this is stated by the maker. Meaning, we are reading prohibit wrong within the meaning of it.

I'm sorry, you've entirely lost me

Basically it is as your explained prior, however a bit more complicated. Seeing as it bans it, until it permits it. If it does not violate the ban or rather restrictions of.

[United Massachusetts]

So I'm good, maybe ...

I'm good

[Auralia]

We believe the construction of clause 2 is quite clear. Hydraulic fracturing is prohibited; however, the prohibition is limited and only applies in cases where any of the conditions listed in 2(a), 2(b), or 2(c) are met.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[United Massachusetts]

Merci, Auralia.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Good luck. When this goes to vote, you'll get my vote simply based on category.

[Flying Eagles]

We currently plan to vote for this proposal. If you wish, you may attempt to convince our government to vote against this resolution

[United Massachusetts]

We currently plan to vote for this proposal. If you wish, you may attempt to convince our government to vote against this resolution

OOC: Good luck. When this goes to vote, you'll get my vote simply based on category.

Glad to have your support

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: Nearly half an hour and IA has yet to cast his vote. IA, mate, you're slipping.

[United Massachusetts]

OOC: Nearly half an hour and IA has yet to cast his vote. IA, mate, you're slipping.

There are already more votes for than IA has endos. We're almost stomp proof. Not quite, though

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: Nearly half an hour and IA has yet to cast his vote. IA, mate, you're slipping.

There are already more votes for than IA has endos. We're almost stomp proof. Not quite, though

OOC: Three letters: TNP.

[United Massachusetts]

There are already more votes for than IA has endos. We're almost stomp proof. Not quite, though

OOC: Three letters: TNP.

Fair. Quite fair.

[Imperial Polk County]

There are already more votes for than IA has endos. We're almost stomp proof. Not quite, though

OOC: Three letters: TNP.

The previous resolution overcame a TNP stomp. So can this one.

[Darksonium]

Voted against, as there's an awful lot of unproven points listed as fact in this proposal, and I hope, ifcthis goes through, someone that pays more attention to this game and it subtleties than I do puts in a "Repeal" proposal.

Then this can come back when it has some serious scientific backing behind it, rather than the current "must be true as we said it".

I agree with the intent, but not the wording.

[United Nations Under One Flag]

Representative Norman Danisk stands to speek.
"We, The United Nations Under One Flag, have voted for this proposal; we have conducted a great many research projects in this area and found empirical evidence to support the claims this proposal works off of. We understand that a plurality of member-states reject this proposal, we find this contradiction of scientific evidence quite interesting; as such, we will further research on this topic. thank you."

The representative sits concluding his speech.

[Hatterleigh]

Honestly, I would vote for this if it was more specific. For example, it doesn't really define what close range is, how many person(s) have to be in the designated area, and to what extent can it harm locals enough so that it must be restricted. For example, what if it is near a major river town, but the water is already polluted so they get water from out of state. Also some fracking is more environmentally safe than others, I would suspect.

[Zakuvia]

"In spite of risking furthering the Empire's perception as a left-leaning government, I have been ordered to approve this proposition. The Zakuvian Energy Cooperative is thrilled that decades of red tape regarding our bordering wetlands is being cut, and that development can begin in earnest. Considering the marshes are seen as merely brackish bogs far removed from human habitation, and that no other environmental considerations were brought up, the extermination of the Lowland Swamp Hawk and the development of the Zakuvian Energy Metroplex may commence!"
- Legate Alrig Durmer

[Principality of the Raix]

It has my vote, but that is primarily due to the fact I know what it does and how it restrains it.

[Lost Brotherhood]

Seeing as not all member nations have had the opportunity to switch over to electric or similarly powered cars, this bill would make sourcing domestic crude for fuel products such as gasoline inconceivably difficult in some regions. This puts an unreasonable burden on some nations to continue to prop their economy up with the Automotive Industry...

[Principality of the Raix]

Seeing as not all member nations have had the opportunity to switch over to electric or similarly powered cars, this bill would make sourcing domestic crude for fuel products such as gasoline inconceivably difficult in some regions. This puts an unreasonable burden on some nations to continue to prop their economy up with the Automotive Industry...

For a very extremely poor nation, yes. But then, here's the question... Does a poor Nation need cars? No, in most cases; They do not. By limiting this, it forces all Nations from poor to rich to improve working conditions for workers and the populace around the country. Forcing fracking to be done in limited area's, with safety in mind.

[Corotanna]

What are the alternatives to fracking? If it becomes prohibited how will nations get the fossil fuels they need?

[Wallenburg]

What are the alternatives to fracking? If it becomes prohibited how will nations get the fossil fuels they need?

Well, you could drill for oil without fracking. You could use coal or natural gas. You could buy fossil fuels from foreign entities. You could replace them with cleaner alternatives like nuclear or solar or hydroelectric power. You could burn biomass. There really are a lot of options.

Of course, that assumes that this is a blanket ban on fracking, which it is not.

[Zakuvia]

What are the alternatives to fracking? If it becomes prohibited how will nations get the fossil fuels they need?

Well, you could drill for oil without fracking. You could use coal or natural gas. You could buy fossil fuels from foreign entities. You could replace them with cleaner alternatives like nuclear or solar or hydroelectric power. You could burn biomass. There really are a lot of options.

Of course, that assumes that this is a blanket ban on fracking, which it is not.

Indeed not. What this resolution does is prohibit any fracking that could foreseeably impact a population center. There are no other restrictions besides compliance to other intersecting WA policies. If you have an unpopulated area rich in oil reserves, your nation may frack itself.

[Lost Brotherhood]

What are the alternatives to fracking? If it becomes prohibited how will nations get the fossil fuels they need?

Well, you could drill for oil without fracking. You could use coal or natural gas. You could buy fossil fuels from foreign entities. You could replace them with cleaner alternatives like nuclear or solar or hydroelectric power. You could burn biomass. There really are a lot of options.

Of course, that assumes that this is a blanket ban on fracking, which it is not.

If it's not a blanket ban, then it's very poorly worded. From this side of the screen, it reads as a blanket ban on fracking. I might support a rewritten version that's more clear in nature, but as it stands this bill is currently too restrictive

[Wallenburg]

Well, you could drill for oil without fracking. You could use coal or natural gas. You could buy fossil fuels from foreign entities. You could replace them with cleaner alternatives like nuclear or solar or hydroelectric power. You could burn biomass. There really are a lot of options.

Of course, that assumes that this is a blanket ban on fracking, which it is not.

If it's not a blanket ban, then it's very poorly worded. From this side of the screen, it reads as a blanket ban on fracking. I might support a rewritten version that's more clear in nature, but as it stands this bill is currently too restrictive

No...no it doesn't. You are either reading an entirely different resolution, or haven't actually read the mandates.