[PASSED] Responsible Handling of Toxic Materials

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

"Opposed. The General Fund is not a bottomless pit.

"Hmm. How do you know of this? Have you visited the General Accounting Office to see whether the General Fund indeed has a bottom? Believe me, I don't know how billions of dollars originating from thousands of member nations can be kept in a pit that does indeed have a bottom! I'll presume that the General Fund is indeed a bottomless pit, unless the gnomes announce the General Fund running out. Or something."

"Furthermore, the definition seems incredibly broad and open ended. Second hand smoke, for example, would fall within it.

"Does the new definition, which clarifies that the health danger must be 'severe', address this? However, we believe that something such as second hand smoke would easily fit under the Section 7 exemption anyway."

In section 3, the term "natural environment" is used and the carrying etc of toxic materials in such a thing is banned. What exactly is a natural environment and does mean that the transportation of certain materials from their source, eg a mine perhaps, to some other location where it might be processed, perhaps a factory, is effectively banned?"

"A factory is artificial, which is the complete opposite of 'natural'. Therefore, it would seem rather unlikely that a factory be considered the 'natural environment'."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

[Bananaistan]

"Opposed. The General Fund is not a bottomless pit.

"Hmm. How do you know of this? Have you visited the General Accounting Office to see whether the General Fund indeed has a bottom? Believe me, I don't know how billions of dollars originating from thousands of member nations can be kept in a pit that does indeed have a bottom! I'll presume that the General Fund is indeed a bottomless pit, unless the gnomes announce the General Fund running out. Or something."

"Furthermore, the definition seems incredibly broad and open ended. Second hand smoke, for example, would fall within it.

"Does the new definition, which clarifies that the health danger must be 'severe', address this? However, we believe that something such as second hand smoke would easily fit under the Section 7 exemption anyway."

In section 3, the term "natural environment" is used and the carrying etc of toxic materials in such a thing is banned. What exactly is a natural environment and does mean that the transportation of certain materials from their source, eg a mine perhaps, to some other location where it might be processed, perhaps a factory, is effectively banned?"

"A factory is artificial, which is the complete opposite of 'natural'. Therefore, it would seem rather unlikely that a factory be considered the 'natural environment'."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

"I think you've missed a key part of my point. I don't care the materials in the factory, it's the carrying to the factory that I spoke to.

"I don't see that there has been a new draft given to me yet in order to comment on the inclusion of the word severe.

"Regarding the funding. We will actively oppose and campaign against this should the provision remain unchanged. It's a blank cheque to allow bad actors, possibly native to rich nations, continuously destroy local environments in developing nations and have the WA come in a clean up their mess while they run laughing to the bank with their ill-gotten gains."

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

"Hmm. How do you know of this? Have you visited the General Accounting Office to see whether the General Fund indeed has a bottom? Believe me, I don't know how billions of dollars originating from thousands of member nations can be kept in a pit that does indeed have a bottom! I'll presume that the General Fund is indeed a bottomless pit, unless the gnomes announce the General Fund running out. Or something."


"Does the new definition, which clarifies that the health danger must be 'severe', address this? However, we believe that something such as second hand smoke would easily fit under the Section 7 exemption anyway."


"A factory is artificial, which is the complete opposite of 'natural'. Therefore, it would seem rather unlikely that a factory be considered the 'natural environment'."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

"I think you've missed a key part of my point. I don't care the materials in the factory, it's the carrying to the factory that I spoke to.

"Fair enough, does the new draft which specifies that the mandate only applies to disposal etc if directly in a natural environment address your concern?"

"I don't see that there has been a new draft given to me yet in order to comment on the inclusion of the word severe.

"Hm, the addition of 'severe' should be included in the next draft."
Ooc: Error on my part, sorry.

"Regarding the funding. We will actively oppose and campaign against this should the provision remain unchanged. It's a blank cheque to allow bad actors, possibly native to rich nations, continuously destroy local environments in developing nations and have the WA come in a clean up their mess while they run laughing to the bank with their ill-gotten gains."

"I'm confused by your point. If a foreign entity enters a nation and begins destroying the environment there, what's stopping the foreign entity from being indeed treated as non-compliant, and accordingly punished under this same resolution?"

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The ice States

[ImperialRussia]

Then the foreign entity is responsible to repair the environment from which the Victor in long run has to pay damages from which the territories they conquered from any nation.

[Bananaistan]

"I think you've missed a key part of my point. I don't care the materials in the factory, it's the carrying to the factory that I spoke to.

"Fair enough, does the new draft which specifies that the mandate only applies to disposal etc if directly in a natural environment address your concern?"

"It does not. Section 3 still prohibits the carrying of the relevant materials in the still undefined "natural environment".

"I don't see that there has been a new draft given to me yet in order to comment on the inclusion of the word severe.

"Hm, the addition of 'severe' should be included in the next draft."
Ooc: Error on my part, sorry.

"This is still open to interpretation. We would suggest that your nation's technical experts need to study this a bit longer and come back to us."

"Regarding the funding. We will actively oppose and campaign against this should the provision remain unchanged. It's a blank cheque to allow bad actors, possibly native to rich nations, continuously destroy local environments in developing nations and have the WA come in a clean up their mess while they run laughing to the bank with their ill-gotten gains."

"I'm confused by your point. If a foreign entity enters a nation and begins destroying the environment there, what's stopping the foreign entity from being indeed treated as non-compliant, and accordingly punished under this same resolution?"

"Who says the foreign entity is a member state? Most of the member states around here don't concern themselves directly with such matters and allow for domestic corporations and individuals to engage in "international trade". In such a scenario where a company from nation B is conducting operations in A, and if A is not in a position to adequately regulate the company's activities, you effectively just have the WA writing a blank cheque to nation B, possibly multiple times.

"Nobody is going to be going about "disposing of, storing, carrying" etc any of the toxic materials without good cause. in the vast majority of situations, the good cause will be profit. Let the person or entity who caused the damage, or even more important, who might be continuously breaching the requirements, foot the bill and keep the General Fund out of it."

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

"Fair enough, does the new draft which specifies that the mandate only applies to disposal etc if directly in a natural environment address your concern?"

"It does not. Section 3 still prohibits the carrying of the relevant materials in the still undefined "natural environment".

"Hm, the addition of 'severe' should be included in the next draft."
Ooc: Error on my part, sorry.

"This is still open to interpretation. We would suggest that your nation's technical experts need to study this a bit longer and come back to us."

"Fair enough, we will make alterations to be more specific with 'severe' and 'natural environment."

"I'm confused by your point. If a foreign entity enters a nation and begins destroying the environment there, what's stopping the foreign entity from being indeed treated as non-compliant, and accordingly punished under this same resolution?"

"Who says the foreign entity is a member state? Most of the member states around here don't concern themselves directly with such matters and allow for domestic corporations and individuals to engage in "international trade". In such a scenario where a company from nation B is conducting operations in A, and if A is not in a position to adequately regulate the company's activities, you effectively just have the WA writing a blank cheque to nation B, possibly multiple times.

"Nobody is going to be going about "disposing of, storing, carrying" etc any of the toxic materials without good cause. in the vast majority of situations, the good cause will be profit. Let the person or entity who caused the damage, or even more important, who might be continuously breaching the requirements, foot the bill and keep the General Fund out of it."

"Would it address your concern if, instead of the GAO providing these funds free, it was changed into a no-interest, say, ten-year loaning of funds, such that the non-compliers will still have to pay it back?"

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

"We have added a definition of 'natural environment'. Further, the funding mechanism now forces non-compliers to cover expenses on the WAGF of Section 6 efforts after wilful violations."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Bump.

[Simone Republic]

"Fair enough, does the new draft which specifies that the mandate only applies to disposal etc if directly in a natural environment address your concern?"

"It does not. Section 3 still prohibits the carrying of the relevant materials in the still undefined "natural environment".

"Hm, the addition of 'severe' should be included in the next draft."
Ooc: Error on my part, sorry.

"This is still open to interpretation. We would suggest that your nation's technical experts need to study this a bit longer and come back to us."

"I'm confused by your point. If a foreign entity enters a nation and begins destroying the environment there, what's stopping the foreign entity from being indeed treated as non-compliant, and accordingly punished under this same resolution?"

"Who says the foreign entity is a member state? Most of the member states around here don't concern themselves directly with such matters and allow for domestic corporations and individuals to engage in "international trade". In such a scenario where a company from nation B is conducting operations in A, and if A is not in a position to adequately regulate the company's activities, you effectively just have the WA writing a blank cheque to nation B, possibly multiple times.

"Nobody is going to be going about "disposing of, storing, carrying" etc any of the toxic materials without good cause. in the vast majority of situations, the good cause will be profit. Let the person or entity who caused the damage, or even more important, who might be continuously breaching the requirements, foot the bill and keep the General Fund out of it."

Regardless of the merits of the resolution, is clause 8(b) an issue given it's attempting to use WA General Fund money but it's a "strongly urge" and therefore optionality issues would arise, especially after the International Art Gallery ruling? Especially because of the "All Businesses - Strong" category

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Long post

Regardless of the merits of the resolution, is clause 8(b) an issue given it's attempting to use WA General Fund money but it's a "strongly urge" and therefore optionality issues would arise, especially after the International Art Gallery ruling? Especially because of the "All Businesses - Strong" category

Ooc: The precedent is (in relevant part; emphasis added) that "a per se mild proposal (containing no mandatory language) must be submitted with mild strength or in a mild area of effect". Most of the mandates are indeed mandatory upon all member nations. I therefore do not believe this proposal to be illegal for optionality.

[Haganham]

Two issues that seem to be missed. Training and labeling.
Containers for toxic materials should be labeled such that the nature of the hazard they present(carcinogen, poison gas, environmental toxin, simple asphyxiant, ect) can be readily identified, with additional documentation of the specific materials present.
Facilities and vehicles that handle should carry documentation for all of the toxic materials therein, and how to contain them, and provide first aid to those exposed.
People working at facilities that handle toxic materials should be trained on how to respond in the event of a leak or exposure, and people responsible for handling leaks and exposure should be trained in how to do so safely, and be provided with the protective equipment needed to do so.

This is a large part of my profession(though hazardous materials generally rather then specifically toxic materials), so if you have questions on how this is actually handled please reach out to me.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Two issues that seem to be missed. Training and labeling.
Containers for toxic materials should be labeled such that the nature of the hazard they present(carcinogen, poison gas, environmental toxin, simple asphyxiant, ect) can be readily identified, with additional documentation of the specific materials present.
Facilities and vehicles that handle should carry documentation for all of the toxic materials therein, and how to contain them, and provide first aid to those exposed.
People working at facilities that handle toxic materials should be trained on how to respond in the event of a leak or exposure, and people responsible for handling leaks and exposure should be trained in how to do so safely, and be provided with the protective equipment needed to do so.

This is a large part of my profession(though hazardous materials generally rather then specifically toxic materials), so if you have questions on how this is actually handled please reach out to me.

These first two are covered by "Uniform Labeling of Hazardous Goods", in addition to "Health and Safety Act" for the second. The third is also covered by "Workplace Safety Standards Act".

[The Ice States]

Upon discussion with Gemeinschaftsland, this was withdrawn once again, and will be rewritten to act as a replacement for GA #298, as to complement "Safe Transportation of Hazardous Materials".

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Bump.

[Simone Republic]

I think this resolution would simply get into ever more circular arguments on the grounds that the NS multi-verse recognises "sapients" and something toxic to one specie might be a nutrient to another (especially for those with sci-fi RPs).

Ooc: I'm not too interested in accomodating for "tHe SaPiEnT pOtAtOeS oF cOnTrArIaN eXtRaOrDiNaIrE cAn OnLy EaT mErCuRy AnD bReAtHe CaRbOn MoNoXiDe" wank.

I think you are still going into the argument (to quote you) analogous to "tHe SaPiEnT pOtAtOeS oF cOnTrArIaN eXtRaOrDiNaIrE cAn OnLy EaT mErCuRy AnD bReAtHe CaRbOn MoNoXiDe".

PG-13 by the way, please.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Ooc: I'm not too interested in accomodating for "tHe SaPiEnT pOtAtOeS oF cOnTrArIaN eXtRaOrDiNaIrE cAn OnLy EaT mErCuRy AnD bReAtHe CaRbOn MoNoXiDe" wank.

I think you are still going into the argument (to quote you) analogous to "tHe SaPiEnT pOtAtOeS oF cOnTrArIaN eXtRaOrDiNaIrE cAn OnLy EaT mErCuRy AnD bReAtHe CaRbOn MoNoXiDe".

PG-13 by the way, please.

Ooc: I'm not really going to bother with accomodating for that besides what it already allows (if mercury is somehow not a poison in your universe, then it wouldn't be a "toxic material").

I am not the first to use that term in the GA forum, but if moderation sees fit to warn me for that, they can.

[Potted Plants United]

IC and OOC as marked.

"This is intended to replace GA #298 in case of repeal and supplement "Safe Transportation of Hazardous Materials".

OOC: So is this entire proposal made "just in case"? As in, you're not going to submit unless something else gets repealed? What's the point with that? Unless you're intending to repeal the other one.

And what category/strength/AoE? Those have changed over the years, so citing a resolution with number below 300 is not helpful.

Recognising the danger that irresponsible handling of toxic materials can pose both to public health and to the environment,

OOC: The usual format is to put The World Assembly at the top. And you might pluralize "danger", since "danger to public health" and "danger to environment" are two different dangers. And in any case, "public health" is a very vague term - a spill of something that's only toxic if you touch it, and is locally contained, isn't much of a danger to public health. It might be a danger to a handful of people needing to contain and clean it up, but if it got into, say, a lake, it would likely be diluted to the point where it no longer was a danger to public health. So... needs more preamble.

What is the problem you're trying to solve?

Why does it need international legislation to deal with?

Why do you think previously existing resolutions don't already handle it?

Try answering those in the preamble.

The World Assembly enacts as follows _

OOC: There are random _s floating behind this and the next line. Editing error?

For the purposes of this resolution _

OOC: You could avoid some issues if you actually defined things, rather than tried to state things as fact. There's a subtle difference, but definitions are generally speaking your friends, as facts depend on your frame of reference. You can call it RP wank all you like, but it goes both ways.

A material is "toxic" in an environment or quantity such that said material is likely to pose, directly or via contamination of surrounding environments, an intense risk to health or of causing significant environmental degradation.

IC: "Either "environmental degradation" does not mean what you think it means, or you're unintentionally making things harder for yourself. This could be easily rewritten - as a definition, anyway - as "defines a material toxic when it poses immediate risk to the life and health of nearby living organisms in the quantity and form it is present". Including "form" would mean that a mineral containing heavy metal that is not dangerous as long as it remains in the mineral encased in a rock, or if purified, exists in a container where it will not leak or end up in the environment to begin with, even if the train carrying it was derailed. Though you may find that as long as you insist on including the environment, you will never be able to transport antibiotics, because the environment is full of microbes to which the substances would be lethal. So rather than the wording of the definition or statement being wrong, the flaw here is in the thinking. You may want to separate "people's health" and "environmental health" into separate subclause definitions."

An environment is "natural" if it exists and functions substantially independently of sapient activity.

IC: "So on planets with industrialized civilizations, these natural environments do not exist?"

OOC: Certainly any place where toxic stuff is transported through, does not count, because the transporting method renders it non-applicable.

A toxic material may not be disposed of in a manner that does not allow said material to speedily lose its toxic qualities, unless, prior to such disposal, that material is processed as to minimise the ability of said material to contaminate the surrounding environment, within the technological and economic capacity of the member nation of jurisdiction.

OOC: This is what happens when you edit and re-edit rather than properly re-write. Something like "may not be disaposed of into the nature, unless first made as harmless as possible", would give the same meaning.

A RL example: when I was studying to be a lab tech, our lab class had its drains empty into the normal sewers that ended up in the normal sewage treatment plant that discharges its waters into a lake. When we were dealing with chemicals that might kill the biofilter microbes at the treatment plant, if flushed down in high enough concentrations, we were mandated to flush them down gradually, with lots of water, to dilute them to the point where there wouldn't be issues further down the literal line. The only exceptions were highly concentrated acids, radioactive materials (yes, we did have uranium mineral samples) and certain toxic metals (like mercury). Those were collected into containers that would periodically get shipped to a toxic waste treatment plant, that would either recycle them, neutralize them, or put them in permanent storage where they couldn't get into the environment.

Larger scale version of that might be useful for this proposal.

No toxic material may be disposed of, stored, or otherwise kept in

OOC: Others have already pointed out issues here, but going to add my bit, because the clauses persist.

any natural environment or open atmosphere;

IC: "Why are non-volatile solids dangerous to store in open atmosphere? Or solutions where only water may evaporate, leading to a concentrated solution? To reduce the volume, one usually does need to evaporate the water from a solution, to end up with the solid one can then store. Why would you want to ban that?"

OOC: Do note that "open atmosphere" does not equal "out in the open with no roof", it just means that there's nothing to stop the air from moving between the outside of a building and the inside. Regular houses that people live in, have open atmosphere conditions.

a location wherein the disposal, storage, or discharge of said material would likely cause said material to contaminate a nearby natural environment; or

OOC: Drop the article. Also, I don't quite understand this; given your definition of natural environment, it by definition cannot exist in close contact with any place with sapient influence, which would be any location where anything could be disposed, stored or discharged, by any normal methods.

any site failing Section 4 requirements.

OOC: Would make more sense to make clause 4 subclauses of this subclause, since it's a direct continuance.

be surrounded by an effective physical barrier preventing the toxic material held from contaminating the surrounding environment; and

IC: "But it poisoning people is now fine?"

have its immediate surrounding areas regularly tested for toxic material originating from said site.

IC: "No objection here. Should also be required of treatment plants and factories, not only storage facilities."

Upon violation of Section 3a or 3b, or the detection of the surrounding environment being contaminated by toxic material during storage or disposal of the same, the entity responsible for that violation or contamination (hereinafter "incident") must promptly report that incident to the WASP (WA Scientific Programme).

OOC: You sure there isn't one more suitable than WASP? (Also, put the shorthand in round brackets, not the other way round.) WASP is like the top organization for everything scientific. There's a whole host of sub-committees working with it.

The member nation in which said incident occurred shall then, to the best of its ability, collaborate with the WASP to remove said toxic material from areas under its jurisdiction contaminated with that material as a result of said incident.

IC: "Exactly how is this fair if the member nation on whose territory the incident happened, was not to blame for the incident, but it happened during transit by operators from another member nation? Shouldn't whoever spilled it, clean it? Or pay for the cleaning?"

OOC: Taken with the previous clause, private business from Nation A drives tanker truck into Nation B, dumps all the toxic waste into a lake next to a city, leaves and reports it to WASP. Now Nation B is responsible for cleaning it up and paying for the clean-up.

Should that incident threaten the natural environment of another nation, the WASP shall inform that nation of said incident, and also recommend to that nation a means for minimising or resolving harm to that nation's natural environment resulting from said incident.

OOC: Given how you've defined natural environment, my above example still works.

Member nations need not take action against isolated, de minimis violations of Sections 2 - 5, where the quantity of toxic material involved is negligible enough to pose no cognisable hazard to the environment or public health.

OOC: So I'm allowed to use the insect spray to protect myself and my property, even though it kills things, got it. Though would that be application rather than disposal? Is there a difference as far as the proposal is concerned?

Each member nation must, to the best of its ability, provide the WASP with all public domain research and data from its jurisdiction vis-à-vis the toxicity of materials, or alternatives to toxic materials.

OOC: How is research not data? Or is the "and" there an error of editing?

A member nation need not provide such information where that nation lacks practical access to such research or data; that research or data has already been received by the WASP; or the accessing, provision, or distribution of that information is demonstrably likely to compromise national security or personal privacy.

OOC: Again, what is the research information if it's not data? Or what data exists separately from research? Why are you talking about them as separate things?

IC: "So I will not need to disclose anything, as all the information I gain, is stored in my personal memory, rather than a computer or written on a piece of material?"

OOC: The hivemind's question might also apply to cases where a sapient AI is the keeper of data in a nation.

Entities possessing intellectual property rights over any research or data vis-à-vis the toxicity of materials, or alternatives to toxic materials, are strongly urged to provide such information to the WASP. Such provision shall be compensated with funds from the WAGF (WA General Fund) at a level no more or less than sufficient to reasonably procure the provision of such information, except where such information is likely to compromise national security or personal privacy.

OOC: What's with the "vis-a-vis" here and earlier? It's an informal wording that looks really out of place in legal text. Just "...data on the toxicity of materials..." would work.

IC: "Why should any compensation be given? It is merely an urging, and if the urged instance does not want to share for free, they don't have to. Alternatively, you can just compel them to share for free, because toxicity information should be publicly known to begin with!"

OOC: In IC, the hivemind has a shitton of data about various living creatures, sapient and not, which includes info on what's toxic to them and in what quantities. It would totally bleed the General Fund dry if selling the info was put into a resolution. Especially as it could likely beat any other nation to the punch due to not needing to go through internal bureaucracy to get the info ready.

The WASP shall provide to member nations information it has received per Section 7, where such information is likely to help said nations replace, address the dangers of, or reduce toxic materials, except where providing said information is likely to compromise national security or personal privacy.

OOC: Having the privacy invocation here makes no sense. The WASP is a WA committee. It doesn't have personal privacy. Also, "reduce toxic materials" sounds weird. Are we talking of the chemical reaction?

Should a provision of this resolution contradict some past World Assembly resolution still in force, that previous resolution takes precedence.

OOC: This was tried before. I think it was shot down at the time.

Random notes:

This would ban airplanes dumping fuel prior to emergency landings soon after takeoff.

Are you certain you are not stepping on the toes of resolutions that allow using toxic compounds to combat agricultural pests or invasive species?

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Parts in quotes are Ic, and attributable to Ambassador Spencer Hemming; otherwise this post is Ooc.

IC and OOC as marked.

"This is intended to replace GA #298 in case of repeal and supplement "Safe Transportation of Hazardous Materials".

OOC: So is this entire proposal made "just in case"? As in, you're not going to submit unless something else gets repealed? What's the point with that? Unless you're intending to repeal the other one.

Yes.

And what category/strength/AoE? Those have changed over the years, so citing a resolution with number below 300 is not helpful.

Environmental, All Businesses, Mild.

Recognising the danger that irresponsible handling of toxic materials can pose both to public health and to the environment,

OOC: The usual format is to put The World Assembly at the top. And you might pluralize "danger", since "danger to public health" and "danger to environment" are two different dangers. And in any case, "public health" is a very vague term - a spill of something that's only toxic if you touch it, and is locally contained, isn't much of a danger to public health. It might be a danger to a handful of people needing to contain and clean it up, but if it got into, say, a lake, it would likely be diluted to the point where it no longer was a danger to public health. So... needs more preamble.

What is the problem you're trying to solve?

Why does it need international legislation to deal with?

Why do you think previously existing resolutions don't already handle it?

Try answering those in the preamble.[/quote]
Done.

The World Assembly enacts as follows _

OOC: There are random _s floating behind this and the next line. Editing error?

More a particular punctuation use, but I have removed them to avoid confusion.

For the purposes of this resolution _

OOC: You could avoid some issues if you actually defined things, rather than tried to state things as fact. There's a subtle difference, but definitions are generally speaking your friends, as facts depend on your frame of reference. You can call it RP wank all you like, but it goes both ways.

Done.

A material is "toxic" in an environment or quantity such that said material is likely to pose, directly or via contamination of surrounding environments, an intense risk to health or of causing significant environmental degradation.

IC: "Either "environmental degradation" does not mean what you think it means, or you're unintentionally making things harder for yourself. This could be easily rewritten - as a definition, anyway - as "defines a material toxic when it poses immediate risk to the life and health of nearby living organisms in the quantity and form it is present". Including "form" would mean that a mineral containing heavy metal that is not dangerous as long as it remains in the mineral encased in a rock, or if purified, exists in a container where it will not leak or end up in the environment to begin with, even if the train carrying it was derailed. Though you may find that as long as you insist on including the environment, you will never be able to transport antibiotics, because the environment is full of microbes to which the substances would be lethal. So rather than the wording of the definition or statement being wrong, the flaw here is in the thinking. You may want to separate "people's health" and "environmental health" into separate subclause definitions."

"Antibiotics do not cause 'significant environmental degradation', nor do they pose 'an intense risk to health'. Your definition would include materials which only cause risk to the health of organisms such as microbes."

An environment is "natural" if it exists and functions substantially independently of sapient activity.

IC: "So on planets with industrialized civilizations, these natural environments do not exist?"

"If a planet managed to somehow industrialise absolutely all its areas, sure. I find this situation highly unlikely, as environments need not be fully independent of sapient activity to be 'natural'; merely 'substantially' so."

OOC: Certainly any place where toxic stuff is transported through, does not count, because the transporting method renders it non-applicable.

Likewise, something need not be fully independent of sapient activity to count as natural; merely "substantially" so.

A toxic material may not be disposed of in a manner that does not allow said material to speedily lose its toxic qualities, unless, prior to such disposal, that material is processed as to minimise the ability of said material to contaminate the surrounding environment, within the technological and economic capacity of the member nation of jurisdiction.

OOC: This is what happens when you edit and re-edit rather than properly re-write. Something like "may not be disaposed of into the nature, unless first made as harmless as possible", would give the same meaning.

Done, in part.

A RL example: when I was studying to be a lab tech, our lab class had its drains empty into the normal sewers that ended up in the normal sewage treatment plant that discharges its waters into a lake. When we were dealing with chemicals that might kill the biofilter microbes at the treatment plant, if flushed down in high enough concentrations, we were mandated to flush them down gradually, with lots of water, to dilute them to the point where there wouldn't be issues further down the literal line. The only exceptions were highly concentrated acids, radioactive materials (yes, we did have uranium mineral samples) and certain toxic metals (like mercury). Those were collected into containers that would periodically get shipped to a toxic waste treatment plant, that would either recycle them, neutralize them, or put them in permanent storage where they couldn't get into the environment.

Larger scale version of that might be useful for this proposal.

Done.

any natural environment or open atmosphere;

IC: "Why are non-volatile solids dangerous to store in open atmosphere? Or solutions where only water may evaporate, leading to a concentrated solution? To reduce the volume, one usually does need to evaporate the water from a solution, to end up with the solid one can then store. Why would you want to ban that?"

OOC: Do note that "open atmosphere" does not equal "out in the open with no roof", it just means that there's nothing to stop the air from moving between the outside of a building and the inside. Regular houses that people live in, have open atmosphere conditions.

"We will add the term 'directly' to avoid this issue, and removed the term 'open atmosphere'."

a location wherein the disposal, storage, or discharge of said material would likely cause said material to contaminate a nearby natural environment; or

OOC: Drop the article. Also, I don't quite understand this; given your definition of natural environment, it by definition cannot exist in close contact with any place with sapient influence, which would be any location where anything could be disposed, stored or discharged, by any normal methods.

I don't understand this. "Contaminate nearby natural environment" is patently a grammatical error. In addition, as said above, the term "substantially" in the definition =/= "wholly".

any site failing Section 4 requirements.

OOC: Would make more sense to make clause 4 subclauses of this subclause, since it's a direct continuance.

Actually made it so that it's no longer a direct continuance, thanks.

be surrounded by an effective physical barrier preventing the toxic material held from contaminating the surrounding environment; and

IC: "But it poisoning people is now fine?"

"This is not in the scope of this resolution, which is to ensure that toxic materials are handled responsibly as to prevent spills, leaks, and contamination. Your nation can ban poisoning people if it hasn't already."

have its immediate surrounding areas regularly tested for toxic material originating from said site.

IC: "No objection here. Should also be required of treatment plants and factories, not only storage facilities."

"Done."

Upon violation of Section 3a or 3b, or the detection of the surrounding environment being contaminated by toxic material during storage or disposal of the same, the entity responsible for that violation or contamination (hereinafter "incident") must promptly report that incident to the WASP (WA Scientific Programme).

OOC: You sure there isn't one more suitable than WASP? (Also, put the shorthand in round brackets, not the other way round.) WASP is like the top organization for everything scientific. There's a whole host of sub-committees working with it.

All done.

The member nation in which said incident occurred shall then, to the best of its ability, collaborate with the WASP to remove said toxic material from areas under its jurisdiction contaminated with that material as a result of said incident.

IC: "Exactly how is this fair if the member nation on whose territory the incident happened, was not to blame for the incident, but it happened during transit by operators from another member nation? Shouldn't whoever spilled it, clean it? Or pay for the cleaning?"

OOC: Taken with the previous clause, private business from Nation A drives tanker truck into Nation B, dumps all the toxic waste into a lake next to a city, leaves and reports it to WASP. Now Nation B is responsible for cleaning it up and paying for the clean-up.

"We will take action to fix this shortly."

Each member nation must, to the best of its ability, provide the WASP with all public domain research and data from its jurisdiction vis-à-vis the toxicity of materials, or alternatives to toxic materials.

OOC: How is research not data? Or is the "and" there an error of editing?

Member nations must provide all research, and all data.

A member nation need not provide such information where that nation lacks practical access to such research or data; that research or data has already been received by the WASP; or the accessing, provision, or distribution of that information is demonstrably likely to compromise national security or personal privacy.

OOC: Again, what is the research information if it's not data? Or what data exists separately from research? Why are you talking about them as separate things?

IC: "So I will not need to disclose anything, as all the information I gain, is stored in my personal memory, rather than a computer or written on a piece of material?"

OOC: The hivemind's question might also apply to cases where a sapient AI is the keeper of data in a nation.

This is RP wank, and I won't take this objection particularly seriously.

Entities possessing intellectual property rights over any research or data vis-à-vis the toxicity of materials, or alternatives to toxic materials, are strongly urged to provide such information to the WASP. Such provision shall be compensated with funds from the WAGF (WA General Fund) at a level no more or less than sufficient to reasonably procure the provision of such information, except where such information is likely to compromise national security or personal privacy.

OOC: What's with the "vis-a-vis" here and earlier? It's an informal wording that looks really out of place in legal text. Just "...data on the toxicity of materials..." would work.

Vis-a-vis is informal now? :skull:

IC: "Why should any compensation be given? It is merely an urging, and if the urged instance does not want to share for free, they don't have to. Alternatively, you can just compel them to share for free, because toxicity information should be publicly known to begin with!"

OOC: In IC, the hivemind has a shitton of data about various living creatures, sapient and not, which includes info on what's toxic to them and in what quantities. It would totally bleed the General Fund dry if selling the info was put into a resolution. Especially as it could likely beat any other nation to the punch due to not needing to go through internal bureaucracy to get the info ready.

"This is to make it more palatable to more capitalist nations, and protect the right to economic freedom."

The WASP shall provide to member nations information it has received per Section 7, where such information is likely to help said nations replace, address the dangers of, or reduce toxic materials, except where providing said information is likely to compromise national security or personal privacy.

OOC: Having the privacy invocation here makes no sense. The WASP is a WA committee. It doesn't have personal privacy. Also, "reduce toxic materials" sounds weird. Are we talking of the chemical reaction?

Committees shouldn't publish information which would compromise the personal privacy of others. By reducing toxic materials, I mean the plain reading of the word "reduce" (which would also be supported under noscitur a sociis), ie make less (use of).

Should a provision of this resolution contradict some past World Assembly resolution still in force, that previous resolution takes precedence.

OOC: This was tried before. I think it was shot down at the time.

It has been used in plenty of resolutions before.

Random notes:

This would ban airplanes dumping fuel prior to emergency landings soon after takeoff.

Fair enough, I will address this later.

Are you certain you are not stepping on the toes of resolutions that allow using toxic compounds to combat agricultural pests or invasive species?

No, due to Section 9.

[The Ice States]

Bump.

[The Ice States]

"Since the destruction of the Empire, we have reviewed proposals written by the Empire's World Assembly mission, and determined that this proposal is worthy of continued work. Therefore, we will still be submitting this proposal should the repeal of 298 pass, under the presumption that it is perfect, due to the lack of new comments."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

Ooc: Submitting this next.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: I'm trying to organize a parent's 70th bday this coming weekend, so time and energy are both very low, so not doing a proper re-review, just pointing out that micro-organisms are a big part of the environment functioning well - in fact, they'd do just fine without macro-organisms, as they did for over a billion years, it's us who need them. So anything that affects them negatively (like antibiotics), is a huge issue for the environment. And antibiotics are indiscriminant killers.

And any place where there's a road suitable for non-ATVs, especially a road with any kind of amount of daily traffic, cannot be said to be "substantially free of sapient activity", so my points on that still stand. Or if you take a more anal reading with the change to "independent" rather than free, then... nowhere is NOT pristine nature, because nature's not dependant on urban areas to exist, only the other way round. And in that case you're back on the issues of not allowing handling, storage or transporting anywhere.

Quick notes:

1.a.: "a material shall be considered "toxic" in an environment or quantity" - something missing before "or".

Why does clause 3 now require hermetic sealing of storage sites, instead of storage containers?

Why does the committee do things that nations should do (5.a.)? Or is involved at all (5.b.)? Clause 5 could (and IMO should) be rewritten to remove the committee entirely.

7.b. still allows the hivemind to bleed the WAGF dry.

WASP needs to be spelled out before the shorthand is used the first time, but I still don't quite understand what the point of it is or why you need two committees for one resolution with a fairly narrow topic.

And clause 9 is still bad and should be removed.

[The Ice States]

OOC: I'm trying to organize a parent's 70th bday this coming weekend, so time and energy are both very low, so not doing a proper re-review, just pointing out that micro-organisms are a big part of the environment functioning well - in fact, they'd do just fine without macro-organisms, as they did for over a billion years, it's us who need them. So anything that affects them negatively (like antibiotics), is a huge issue for the environment. And antibiotics are indiscriminant killers.

Ooc: That's not what the word "environmental degradation" means; will a can of antibiotics being spilled result in (quoting Wikipedia), "the deterioration of the environment through depletion of resources such as quality of air, water and soil; the destruction of ecosystems; habitat destruction; the extinction of wildlife; [or] pollution"? The answer is no.

And any place where there's a road suitable for non-ATVs, especially a road with any kind of amount of daily traffic, cannot be said to be "substantially free of sapient activity", so my points on that still stand. Or if you take a more anal reading with the change to "independent" rather than free, then... nowhere is NOT pristine nature, because nature's not dependant on urban areas to exist, only the other way round. And in that case you're back on the issues of not allowing handling, storage or transporting anywhere.

Once again, substantially does not mean fully.

Quick notes:

1.a.: "a material shall be considered "toxic" in an environment or quantity" - something missing before "or".

Fixed.

Why does clause 3 now require hermetic sealing of storage sites, instead of storage containers?

"Site" has been changed to "location".

Why does the committee do things that nations should do (5.a.)? Or is involved at all (5.b.)? Clause 5 could (and IMO should) be rewritten to remove the committee entirely.

As to Section 5a, the TMC will have greater knowledge and resources, and will have fewer biases, than a member nation, to determine "a recommended means for minimising or resolving harm, as a result of said incident, to that nation's natural environment", and also to provide effective information to the affected nation. As to 5b, the committee will likely have a different body of information and resources than a nation, as to maximise efficiency; further, if, for example, Nation A causes a spill in Nation B, which Nation A is at war with, if the TMC is involved it can send agents to perform the cleanup on behalf of nation A, rather than Nation A itself directly doing so.

7.b. still allows the hivemind to bleed the WAGF dry.

This is RP wank.

WASP needs to be spelled out before the shorthand is used the first time, but I still don't quite understand what the point of it is or why you need two committees for one resolution with a fairly narrow topic.

All references to the WASP are removed.

And clause 9 is still bad and should be removed.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=407/council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=466/council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=499/council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=503/council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=508/council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=523/council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=550/council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=598/council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=601/council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=611/council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=630/council=1

[Comfed]

And clause 9 is still bad and should be removed.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=407/council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=466/council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=499/council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=503/council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=508/council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=523/council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=550/council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=598/council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=601/council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=611/council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=630/council=1

Just because other authors were lazy doesn't mean you should be too.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=407/council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=466/council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=499/council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=503/council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=508/council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=523/council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=550/council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=598/council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=601/council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=611/council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=630/council=1

Just because other authors were lazy doesn't mean you should be too.

I've removed said wording, even though I really don't see the problem with being "lazy" here.

[Potted Plants United]

Ooc: That's not what the word "environmental degradation" means; will a can of antibiotics being spilled result in (quoting Wikipedia), "the deterioration of the environment through depletion of resources such as quality of air, water and soil; the destruction of ecosystems; habitat destruction; the extinction of wildlife; [or] pollution"? The answer is no.

OOC: A can? No. A shipping container? Probably.

And any place where there's a road suitable for non-ATVs, especially a road with any kind of amount of daily traffic, cannot be said to be "substantially free of sapient activity", so my points on that still stand. Or if you take a more anal reading with the change to "independent" rather than free, then... nowhere is NOT pristine nature, because nature's not dependant on urban areas to exist, only the other way round. And in that case you're back on the issues of not allowing handling, storage or transporting anywhere.

Once again, substantially does not mean fully.

Exactly. So, either nowhere is, or everywhere is.

Why does clause 3 now require hermetic sealing of storage sites, instead of storage containers?

"Site" has been changed to "location".

That makes it worse! Sizewise: location > site > container. You want to wrap the metaphorical cling wrap around the smallest unit to make it anywhere near feasible to actually make happen.

As to Section 5a, the TMC will have greater knowledge and resources, and will have fewer biases, than a member nation, to determine "a recommended means for minimising or resolving harm, as a result of said incident, to that nation's natural environment", and also to provide effective information to the affected nation.

Where does it get the information? From the member nations? So, again, what's the committee for, when you could just require the nations to communicate with one another?

if, for example, Nation A causes a spill in Nation B, which Nation A is at war with, if the TMC is involved it can send agents to perform the cleanup on behalf of nation A, rather than Nation A itself directly doing so.

It's just missing the bit where the cleaning bill would be sent to Nation A, not the General Fund.

7.b. still allows the hivemind to bleed the WAGF dry.

This is RP wank.

It's not wank when you write it into the resolution! Then it's just RP.

And clause 9 is still bad and should be removed.

*links snipped*

...and clause 9 is still bad and should be removed.