NationStates

The World Assembly,

Observing the excessive micromanagement in General Assembly Resolution #520, “Landfill Regulation Act”, which includes mandating that member nations create agencies to ensure compliance, unnecessary handholding and bureaucracy that is better left to be decided by member nations themselves;

Further observing that this overreach ignores member nations who use private companies to survey environments, which results in member nations being forced to create agencies they will not use, meaning that the bureaucracy is even more pointless;

Concerned that the poor definition of SWL includes locations such as scrap metal yards, which pose little to no significant harm to public health or the surrounding environment, resulting in harsh mandates being placed on these ‘landfills’ that could cost exorbitant amounts of money;

Dismayed that systems for the collection and removal of leachate are mandated regardless of the potential danger the leachate causes to public health or to the environment, yet another excessively broad mandate;

Further concerned that implementing such unnecessary regulations negatively affect the operations of ‘solid waste landfills’ with very little potential positive benefit;

Realising that placing these mandates on SWLs without any form of subsidy or funding could lead to costs being passed on to the consumers, therefore giving them incentives to dispose of solid waste at unregulated areas instead and defeat the resolution’s purpose of protecting the environment from solid waste;

Convinced that a poorly executed and overreaching resolution ought to be repealed, hereby:

Repeals General Assembly Resolution 520, “Landfill Regulation Act”.

Honeydewistania wrote:

The World Assembly,

Observing the excessive micromanagement in General Assembly Resolution #520, “Landfill Regulation Act”, which includes mandating that member nations create agencies to ensure compliance, unnecessary handholding and bureaucracy that is better left to be decided by member nations themselves;

Further observing that this overreach ignores member nations who use private companies to survey environments, which results in member nations being forced to create agencies they will not use, meaning that the bureaucracy is even more pointless;

Incensed that the poor definition of SWL includes locations such as scrap metal yards, which pose little to no significant harm to public health or the surrounding environment, resulting in harsh mandates being placed on these ‘landfills’ that could cost exorbitant amounts of money;

Dismayed that systems for the collection and removal of leachate are mandated regardless of the potential danger the leachate causes to public health or to the environment, yet another excessively broad mandate;

Distressed that implementing such unnecessary regulations negatively affect the operations of ‘solid waste landfills’ with very little potential positive benefit;

Noting that previously passed resolutions such as "Transboundary Water Use Act", "Preventing Groundwater Contamination" and "Convention on Freshwater Shortages" already severely limit the transnational impact of landfills, and realising that the problems caused by landfills are better to be addressed on a national scale instead;

Convinced that regulating landfills is a national concern rather than an international issue, and that an overreaching resolution ought to be repealed, hereby:

Repeals General Assembly Resolution 520, “Landfill Regulation Act”.

Observing the excessive micromanagement in General Assembly Resolution #520, “Landfill Regulation Act”, which includes mandating that member nations create agencies to ensure compliance, unnecessary handholding and bureaucracy that is better left to be decided by member nations themselves;

establish, if such does not already exist, a state agency or similar organization with the responsibility of inspecting and regulating SWLs in accordance with this resolution and reviewing complaints regarding the operation of particular SWLs;

Further observing that this overreach ignores member nations who use private companies to survey environments, which results in member nations being forced to create agencies they will not use, meaning that the bureaucracy is even more pointless;

Incensed that the poor definition of SWL includes locations such as scrap metal yards, which pose little to no significant harm to public health or the surrounding environment, resulting in harsh mandates being placed on these ‘landfills’ that could cost exorbitant amounts of money;

include effective physical barriers designed to protect the surrounding environment and groundwater from waste contained in them and leachate originating from them;

include effective systems for the collection and removal of leachate for treatment and environmentally safe disposal; and

are operated in such a way that minimizes potential environmental and health hazards resulting from their operations, within reason;

Dismayed that systems for the collection and removal of leachate are mandated regardless of the potential danger the leachate causes to public health or to the environment, yet another excessively broad mandate;

Distressed that implementing such unnecessary regulations negatively affect the operations of ‘solid waste landfills’ with very little potential positive benefit;

Noting that previously passed resolutions such as "Transboundary Water Use Act", "Preventing Groundwater Contamination" and "Convention on Freshwater Shortages" already severely limit the transnational impact of landfills, and realising that the problems caused by landfills are better to be addressed on a national scale instead;

Convinced that regulating landfills is a national concern rather than an international issue, and that an overreaching resolution ought to be repealed, hereby:

Cretox State wrote:

Further observing that this overreach ignores member nations who use private companies to survey environments, which results in member nations being forced to create agencies they will not use, meaning that the bureaucracy is even more pointless;

This is untrue: "a state agency or similar organization". A reasonable interpretation of this clause does not preclude using private organizations.

Cretox State wrote:

Incensed that the poor definition of SWL includes locations such as scrap metal yards, which pose little to no significant harm to public health or the surrounding environment, resulting in harsh mandates being placed on these ‘landfills’ that could cost exorbitant amounts of money;

What the proposal actually says:

include effective physical barriers designed to protect the surrounding environment and groundwater from waste contained in them and leachate originating from them;

include effective systems for the collection and removal of leachate for treatment and environmentally safe disposal; and

are operated in such a way that minimizes potential environmental and health hazards resulting from their operations, within reason;

Physical barriers: Does your scrap metal yard have a fence to keep metal from getting in a nearby river? Is that all said scrap metal yard needs as an "effective" barrier? Then you're fine.

Leachate: Does your scrap metal yard have no real ability to produce leachate? Then an "effective" system is no system at all.

Minimizes potential hazards: Do you seriously have a problem with this?

Cretox State wrote:

Noting that previously passed resolutions such as "Transboundary Water Use Act", "Preventing Groundwater Contamination" and "Convention on Freshwater Shortages" already severely limit the transnational impact of landfills, and realising that the problems caused by landfills are better to be addressed on a national scale instead;

The purpose of this proposal is to establish a regulatory framework. Landfills are a public health concern and warrant more specific legislation to address them.

Convinced that regulating landfills is a national concern rather than an international issue, and that an overreaching resolution ought to be repealed, hereby:

So natsov.

This instarepeal reads like intentional misinterpretation wrapped in natsov.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Separate post.

To the OP, I'd redraft the proposal to avoid phrasing like 'distressed' and other somewhat melodramatic verbs.

Cretox State wrote:Ooh, an instarepeal right as voting is starting! Looks like Tinhampton has some competition!

Observing the excessive micromanagement in General Assembly Resolution #520, “Landfill Regulation Act”, which includes mandating that member nations create agencies to ensure compliance, unnecessary handholding and bureaucracy that is better left to be decided by member nations themselves;

What the proposal actually says:

establish, if such does not already exist, a state agency or similar organization with the responsibility of inspecting and regulating SWLs in accordance with this resolution and reviewing complaints regarding the operation of particular SWLs;

Member nations could easily add regulating landfills to the mission of a parks service or similar and comply with this. A decentralized system of municipal inspectors also works.

Further observing that this overreach ignores member nations who use private companies to survey environments, which results in member nations being forced to create agencies they will not use, meaning that the bureaucracy is even more pointless;

This is untrue: "a state agency or similar organization". A reasonable interpretation of this clause does not preclude using private organizations.

Incensed that the poor definition of SWL includes locations such as scrap metal yards, which pose little to no significant harm to public health or the surrounding environment, resulting in harsh mandates being placed on these ‘landfills’ that could cost exorbitant amounts of money;

What the proposal actually says:

include effective physical barriers designed to protect the surrounding environment and groundwater from waste contained in them and leachate originating from them;

include effective systems for the collection and removal of leachate for treatment and environmentally safe disposal; and

are operated in such a way that minimizes potential environmental and health hazards resulting from their operations, within reason;

Physical barriers: Does your scrap metal yard have a fence to keep metal from getting in a nearby river? Is that all said scrap metal yard needs as an "effective" barrier? Then you're fine.

Leachate: Does your scrap metal yard have no real ability to produce leachate? Then an "effective" system is no system at all.

Minimizes potential hazards: Do you seriously have a problem with this?

Dismayed that systems for the collection and removal of leachate are mandated regardless of the potential danger the leachate causes to public health or to the environment, yet another excessively broad mandate;

Same as above.

Distressed that implementing such unnecessary regulations negatively affect the operations of ‘solid waste landfills’ with very little potential positive benefit;

Same as above. Also, this is vague.

Noting that previously passed resolutions such as "Transboundary Water Use Act", "Preventing Groundwater Contamination" and "Convention on Freshwater Shortages" already severely limit the transnational impact of landfills, and realising that the problems caused by landfills are better to be addressed on a national scale instead;

The purpose of this proposal is to establish a regulatory framework. Landfills are a public health concern and warrant more specific legislation to address them.

Convinced that regulating landfills is a national concern rather than an international issue, and that an overreaching resolution ought to be repealed, hereby:

So natsov.

This instarepeal reads like intentional misinterpretation wrapped in natsov.

Bananaistan wrote:OOC: Does a scrap metal yard store scrap metal on a long term or permanent basis? Is scrap metal even a non-hazardous solid waste?

Edit: To be clear, if the answer to both questions is yes, then the scrap metal yard is in fact a dump and it’s not unreasonable to apply dump rules to it.

Honeydewistania wrote:Do you have any sources for landfills causing public health concerns in real life? Just curious.

Groot wrote:OOC:

Honeydewistania wrote:Do you have any sources for landfills causing public health concerns in real life? Just curious.

Here's an Oxford University Press article referencing a 2016 study:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160524211817.htm#:~:text=The%20results%20showed%20a%20strong,and%20hospitalizations%20for%20respiratory%20diseases.

From the NIH website, here's an abstract from a case study in South Africa:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6617357/

There are plenty more. It should be noted that it isn't just leachate that's an issue, it's off-gassing and particulate matter as well.

On a side note, I grew up within two miles of a landfill in NYC. Might explain a few things....

establish, if such does not already exist, a state agency or similar organization with the responsibility of inspecting and regulating SWLs in accordance with this resolution and reviewing complaints regarding the operation of particular SWLs;

Honeydewistania wrote:Okay, I'll admit that landfills may be an area for legislation, and changes have been made to make it more arguing against execution rather than premise

Honeydewistania wrote:Just a clarification, does:

establish, if such does not already exist, a state agency or similar organization with the responsibility of inspecting and regulating SWLs in accordance with this resolution and reviewing complaints regarding the operation of particular SWLs;

mean that the agency must be used or must be established?

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Honeydewistania wrote:Just a clarification, does:

establish, if such does not already exist, a state agency or similar organization with the responsibility of inspecting and regulating SWLs in accordance with this resolution and reviewing complaints regarding the operation of particular SWLs;

mean that the agency must be used or must be established?

Established based on the text.

Honeydewistania wrote:

The World Assembly,

Observing the excessive micromanagement in General Assembly Resolution #520, “Landfill Regulation Act”, which includes mandating that member nations create agencies to ensure compliance, unnecessary handholding and bureaucracy that is better left to be decided by member nations themselves;

Further observing that this overreach ignores member nations who use private companies to survey environments, which results in member nations being forced to create agencies they will not use, meaning that the bureaucracy is even more pointless;

Concerned that the poor definition of SWL includes locations such as scrap metal yards, which pose little to no significant harm to public health or the surrounding environment, resulting in harsh mandates being placed on these ‘landfills’ that could cost exorbitant amounts of money;

Dismayed that systems for the collection and removal of leachate are mandated regardless of the potential danger the leachate causes to public health or to the environment, yet another excessively broad mandate;

Further concerned that implementing such unnecessary regulations negatively affect the operations of ‘solid waste landfills’ with very little potential positive benefit;

Realising that placing these mandates on SWLs without any form of subsidy or funding could lead to costs being passed on to the consumers, therefore giving them incentives to dispose of solid waste at unregulated areas instead and defeat the resolution’s purpose of protecting the environment from solid waste;

Convinced that a poorly executed and overreaching resolution ought to be repealed, hereby:

Repeals General Assembly Resolution 520, “Landfill Regulation Act”.

Servilis wrote:How the hell did this get past the SC, I know it's not entirely NatSov, but like 95% of this proposal is just NatSov arguments, I also don't see the correlation of intentions between the NatSov arguments used and the definition arguments used,

If you think GA#520 infringes on NatSov, and you put that as your first argument, why would you care if the definitions are poor,

Pretty disingenuous if I'm honest, but yes, it is legal because NatSov isn't it's only argument, still, the intent here is not that of a definitive one, rather a NatSov one, I believe Honeydewistania is only pointing out the poor execution so that they can pass the repeal on behalf of anti-Regulationists, unless they have a Replacement Legislation,

Then again, "Concerned that the poor definition of SWL includes locations such as scrap metal yards, which pose little to no significant harm to public health or the surrounding environment," as an argument is poorly made, Scrap Metal Yards contain hazards, in fact, lots of 'em, might not affect the surrounding environment, sure, but anyone who goes in there to scavenge will find themselves injured because of lack of regulation, also, Eco-Terrorists could literally use Scrap Metal Yards to place radioactive electronics that are poorly insulated or literally any scrap metal that could radiate and I quote, "the bad stuff",

Also, the proposal never said that there would be no subsidies or funding for SWL regulatory bodies, not to mention that it literally clarifies that these are State owned or governmented owned bodies which therefore are subsidised by the government and/or state,

"Further concerned that implementing such unnecessary regulations negatively affect the operations of ‘solid waste landfills’ with very little potential positive benefit;" unnecessary, where do you get that?

also, "Further observing that this overreach ignores member nations who use private companies to survey environments, which results in member nations being forced to create agencies they will not use, meaning that the bureaucracy is even more pointless;" is wrong, considering that regardless of a nations laws, if they are in the WA, they are required to follow the rules, a NatSov argument like this still won't hold such validity even if backed up with non-NatSov arguments, the nation will be forced to implore the use of these government agencies, whether they like it or not, as they are in the WA, and so are in compliance with their rules,

tis' a bad faith repeal, o' dear land of the honey dew

Kenmoria wrote:“I have voted in favour of this legislation. Though I don’t agree with all the arguments presented, the presence of even a few flaws does justify a repeal, so that a resolution correcting these flaws can be introduced. Hence, full support.”

Refuge Isle wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:“I have voted in favour of this legislation. Though I don’t agree with all the arguments presented, the presence of even a few flaws does justify a repeal, so that a resolution correcting these flaws can be introduced. Hence, full support.”

"Ah, partial support from the Kenmorian delegation, then."