[PASSED] Responsible Handling of Toxic Materials

[My conpuder]

This resolution is an affront to God. He wants me to dump toxic waste in homeless shelters and the sewers.

[The Ice States]

While you've lost my respect for comparing a clause in a make-believe law in the internet to actual slavery, I'll still address this post.

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.

In which case it should indeed abide by these requirements.

Once again, substantially does not mean fully.

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

What?

"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.

Done.

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?

Theoretically, yes a member nation could be required to directly communicate with all 23482 other member nations, but it is certainly simpler to have all the information provided to a centralised committee, which can then more efficiently figure it out than thousands of member nations communicating with each other to attempt to arrive at a consensus.

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.

There is no mention of the General Fund outside of 7b, a mandate for compensation of the provision of scientific information.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC. What nonsense bluster out of Ara: apparently a general non-contradiction clause – or a good faith one, who knows over these edits, – is slavery. We can evolve too by engaging in learning processes, but apparently obstructionism and bad faith rules interpretation (contra previous claims, also by Ara, general non-contradiction clauses are not illegal) are not subject to endogenous correction.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC. What nonsense bluster out of Ara: apparently a general non-contradiction clause – or a good faith one, who knows over these edits, – is slavery.

OOC: Thank you, sweetie, I can always rely on you to jump in to be a contrarian. Now that you're paying attention to the thread, can you also help the author by looking over the actual proposal for any possible feedback?

(contra previous claims, also by Ara, general non-contradiction clauses are not illegal)

Not sure when I said they were illegal (but if you say so, I'm sure I've written those words, as you remember everything I post - which is kind of flattering, really - so no need to post links ), but I definitely think they should be illegal, when used as an "I know this contradicts something so here's an excuse why it doesn't, until something gets repealed if it ever does" excuse. It's basically lazy proposal writing. The more general non-contradiction clause is "in accordance with previously passed resolutions, hereby" or something like that, which is more along the lines of "I tried doing my best to make this abide by the existing resolutions, if I missed something minor, this should handle it".

Allowing lazy writing means someone could pass a resolution mandating death penalty for, say, treason, and with the lazy excuse in it, it would be totally legal. Unless you want people to start putting it in all manner of illegal-for-contradiction proposals, I don't quite understand why you of all people would argue against the point?

(So others don't get confused, I really did reference society's opinions evolving from thinking slavery's good to slavery's bad, as a simile for how opinions on what's good or bad in resolutions can also change over time.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC. What nonsense bluster out of Ara: apparently a general non-contradiction clause – or a good faith one, who knows over these edits, – is slavery.

OOC: Thank you, sweetie, I can always rely on you to jump in to be a contrarian. Now that you're paying attention to the thread, can you also help the author by looking over the actual proposal for any possible feedback?

(contra previous claims, also by Ara, general non-contradiction clauses are not illegal)

Not sure when I said they were illegal (but if you say so, I'm sure I've written those words, as you remember everything I post - which is kind of flattering, really - so no need to post links ), but I definitely think they should be illegal, when used as an "I know this contradicts something so here's an excuse why it doesn't, until something gets repealed if it ever does" excuse. It's basically lazy proposal writing. The more general non-contradiction clause is "in accordance with previously passed resolutions, hereby" or something like that, which is more along the lines of "I tried doing my best to make this abide by the existing resolutions, if I missed something minor, this should handle it".

Allowing lazy writing means someone could pass a resolution mandating death penalty for, say, treason, and with the lazy excuse in it, it would be totally legal. Unless you want people to start putting it in all manner of illegal-for-contradiction proposals, I don't quite understand why you of all people would argue against the point?

(So others don't get confused, I really did reference society's opinions evolving from thinking slavery's good to slavery's bad, as a simile for how opinions on what's good or bad in resolutions can also change over time.)

Astonishingly, sweeting, there are other ways in which one could provide feedback. The WA Discord, for example, is one of them. More astonishingly, it seems as though I can read the last page of this thread, where you said "This [anti-contradiction clause] was tried before[;] I think it was shot down at the time". Note also that it wasn't, it hasn't been, and there are no known cases of this back to 2016, which was six years ago. There is also absolutely no need to confuse "I definitely think [it] should be illegal" with it-is-actually-illegal, which brings me to my actual point.

I want you to stop raising bogus legality claims that everyone but the noobs know are bogus, that you admit are bogus (implied in "they should be" rather than "they are" with the subjunctive), which you then justify with non sequiturs about slavery... that are all actually smokescreens for a much more banal "I don't like it". You can say "I don't like it". I can say "I don't like it". Everyone can say "I don't like it". But you have somehow found yourself in this rut of phrasing "I don't like it" in the usually false terms of "I don't like it therefore I will claim it is illegal to impress that on the noobs". The rules are complicated enough. They do not need purposeful muddying of the waters.

As has been indicated in our interactions over the years so far, it seems that when you make these bogus claims I will come in and tell other people that they are bogus. I don't like to phrase this explicitly in terms of power relations, but I think the noobs will believe me (51 resolutions; commended twice; GenSec member) over you on those legality questions. Given how that would start all but the noobiest noobs to reassess the credibility of your claims more generally, it may be better for you to phrase "I don't like it" in terms of the ex post rationalisations you just provided rather than soon-to-be-disproved legality assertions.

I have no problem with your other feedback. The RP wank excepted. I have no problem with your claims about legality when they are true.

[Honeydewistania]

Benji coughs. "More coffee, please." It was going to be a long night. He flipped through the transcripts of discussions on the Responsible Handling of Toxic Materials until he finally found something to comment.

"What does the 'substantially' in the definition of natural environment achieve? It's just a fluffy meaningless word. Also, this is nowhere near submission."

[The Ice States]

Benji coughs. "More coffee, please." It was going to be a long night. He flipped through the transcripts of discussions on the Responsible Handling of Toxic Materials until he finally found something to comment.

"What does the 'substantially' in the definition of natural environment achieve? It's just a fluffy meaningless word. Also, this is nowhere near submission."

"We believe that this should be addressed. However, with all due respect, this has been in drafting for well over two months. How much longer should this be in drafting? It is certainly near submission, seeing as we intend to submit this very soon."

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

[The Ice States]

Bump.

[Comfed]

Section 3 - this reads to me as it if prohibits storing a toxic material in a natural environment at all and requires that it be secured with a physical barrier. Is this intentional?

Section 5 - you have a requirement that the TMC inform other nations affected by a contamination incident but no mandate that the member state in which the event happened be informed by the entity responsible for the incident. I would add this. Also, you should require that the populations affected by these incidents be informed in some way of what happened and what they can/should do to keep themselves safe (historically to my knowledge cover-ups have happened and made the human impact of environmental contamination worse, this happened with nuclear meltdowns in the USSR such as the for example.)

Edit: Section 7b - if the TMC has to compensate entities from which IP-protected data is being collected from, I don't see why it should be fully optional for those entities to provide data to the TMC.

[The Ice States]

Thanks for the feedback. All of your concerns should be addressed.

Section 3 - this reads to me as it if prohibits storing a toxic material in a natural environment at all and requires that it be secured with a physical barrier. Is this intentional?

Correct.

Edit: Section 7b - if the TMC has to compensate entities from which IP-protected data is being collected from, I don't see why it should be fully optional for those entities to provide data to the TMC.

That is entirely to make it more palatable to voters who would not want entities to provide the information. I am content to amend the language as to make provision mandatory.

[Comfed]

Thanks for the feedback. All of your concerns should be addressed.

Section 3 - this reads to me as it if prohibits storing a toxic material in a natural environment at all and requires that it be secured with a physical barrier. Is this intentional?

Correct.

"Natural environment" is pretty broad. Pretty much anywhere on earth could be argued to be one. Nuclear waste is often stored deep underground in sealed containers to prevent contamination, but arguably deep underground is a natural environment.

Edit: Section 7b - if the TMC has to compensate entities from which IP-protected data is being collected from, I don't see why it should be fully optional for those entities to provide data to the TMC.

That is entirely to make it more palatable to voters who would not want entities to provide the information. I am content to amend the language as to make provision mandatory.

I don't know why people would not want them to provide that information.

[The Ice States]

Thanks for the feedback. All of your concerns should be addressed.


Correct.

"Natural environment" is pretty broad. Pretty much anywhere on earth could be argued to be one. Nuclear waste is often stored deep underground in sealed containers to prevent contamination, but arguably deep underground is a natural environment.

My intent with the word "directly" is that dumping mercury in a river would be prohibited; while deep underground in a sealed container would not be disposing of it "directly" in deep underground, even if it counted as a natural environment.

That is entirely to make it more palatable to voters who would not want entities to provide the information. I am content to amend the language as to make provision mandatory.

I don't know why people would not want them to provide that information.

Done.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: I said in TG I'd help with the preamble, but when I started writing, I just kind of kept going. So this is my version with as much extra fluff shorn off as I could, simplifying requirements, removing any need for a committee, and in general trying to follow the KISS principle. The remaining fluff may be necessary to soak up the last few traces of the toxic spill known as unwillingness to put money in the environmental protections.

May contain typos, grammar errors, mental typos and punctuation errors, and I'm not feeling awake enough to tackle a re-edit right now, so going to share it as is, so you don't think I forgot.

The following draft is for the use of Magecastle Embassy Building A5 (and any co-authors they have) or myself only.

Responsible Handling of Toxic Materials

Category: Environmental
AoE: All Businesses - Strong

The World Assembly,

Concerned by the lack of current legislation on the handling of toxic materials,

Aware that many toxic materials are necessary raw materials for chemical industry, or the immediate side-products thereof,

Hoping to minimize the exposure of both people and natural environment to toxic materials during production, transporting and storage,

Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution,

1. "natural environment" as any environment with unrestricted access to the atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere or soil,
2. "toxic material" as any material that is present in such quantities and concentrations as to pose a serious health risk to either people, the natural environment or both, in the case of an uncontrolled release,
3. "uncontrolled release" as the introduction of a toxic material into the natural environment without taking adequate steps to reduce its toxicity to levels where it no longer poses a serious health risk;

2. Bans intentional uncontrolled releases, and mandates they be investigated and prosecuted as crimes, unless it can be proven that the action was necessary to prevent a more serious inident, such as emergency venting of toxic gas to avoid a catastrophic explosion in a production facility;

3. Requires that unintentional uncontrolled releases be reported to the local and national authorities immediately upon their discovery, even if the full extent of the release was not yet known, and that if the toxic material poses a credible hazard to another nation's population or environment, that nation's authorities must also be informed as soon as possible;

4. Further requires that all facilities that produce, process or store toxic materials, take necessary measures to reduce any chances of uncontrolled releases, sample the nearby environment regularly to test for toxic material pollution originating from the facility, and report the test results to the local and national authorities;

5. Mandates that all transporting of toxic materials must be handled so as to minimize any chance of an uncontrolled release in the case of an accident, such as a vehicle crash; and that the persons responsible for the toxic material during transporting are aware of the safety requirements of their cargo, and are equipped with the necessary personal safety equipment to deal with an immediate accident aftermath, if otherwise able to do so;

6. Also encourages member nations to research safer alternatives to toxic materials that are still in use.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

I'm not too keen on micromanaging what steps member nations must take to enforce the mandates of this resolution; nations which do not already enforce the mandates (or if it is a member nation itself violating the resolution) will be penalised by the IAO under GA #440. In addition, the transporting of toxic materials is outside of the scope of this proposal, as it is intended to be covered by another draft by Gemeinschaftsland.

[The Ice States]

Bump. Submitting this next.

[The Ice States]

Bump.

[Zabzia]

This vote is incredibly harsh on those with developing economies. As we are a 'Strong' Economy we hope to develop into a 'Frightening' Economy to give our citizens the best quality of life. We can't achieve this if environmental regulations are hindering us.

[Tinhampton]

This vote is incredibly harsh on those with developing economies. As we are a 'Strong' Economy we hope to develop into a 'Frightening' Economy to give our citizens the best quality of life. We can't achieve this if environmental regulations are hindering us.

I am a WA member with a Frightening economy and I have voted for this resolution.

[Zabzia]

This vote is incredibly harsh on those with developing economies. As we are a 'Strong' Economy we hope to develop into a 'Frightening' Economy to give our citizens the best quality of life. We can't achieve this if environmental regulations are hindering us.

I am a WA member with a Frightening economy and I have voted for this resolution.

Precisely, you are not a developing economy. This resolution will barely affect you.

[The Ice States]

This vote is incredibly harsh on those with developing economies. As we are a 'Strong' Economy we hope to develop into a 'Frightening' Economy to give our citizens the best quality of life. We can't achieve this if environmental regulations are hindering us.

"This applies to all economies and nations equally. It certainly does not 'discriminat[e] against developing countries'."

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

Edit, Ooc: Mostly for academic purposes, per discussion with Jutsa off-site, it appears that Environmental/AB/Strong resolutions actually have no effect on the "Economy" stat, as of April 2021; nor is there any effect as of October 2022 from Environmental/AB/Mild resolutions, or as of November 2021 from repeal of the same Strong category. However, it does seem to create a slight decrease in the "Economic Output" stat (as of all aforementioned instances), as well as in all industries. It also creates a slight increase in the Tax rate.

[Heidgaudr]

This vote is incredibly harsh on those with developing economies. As we are a 'Strong' Economy we hope to develop into a 'Frightening' Economy to give our citizens the best quality of life. We can't achieve this if environmental regulations are hindering us.

This applies to all economies and nations equally. It certainly does not "discriminat[e] against developing countries".

It's absolutely possible for something that doesn't explicitly name any group to still discriminate. That's the entire basis of systemic racism IRL, after all.

That being said, I would like to hear how exactly this discriminates against developing countries.

[Microoceania]

very based and redpilled proposal no contest

[La Chonita]

For the purposes of this resolution, a material shall be considered "toxic" in an environment or a quantity such that said material would pose, directly or via contamination of surrounding environments, a significant risk to health or of causing environmental degradation.

The delegation of La Chonita has issues over the definition of “toxic” and feels a need for a proper list that outlines which chemical or chemical compounds would be considered “toxic”. Otherwise, any nation can call foul over another spilling expired milk into their backyard.

[The Ice States]

For the purposes of this resolution, a material shall be considered "toxic" in an environment or a quantity such that said material would pose, directly or via contamination of surrounding environments, a significant risk to health or of causing environmental degradation.

The delegation of La Chonita has issues over the definition of “toxic” and feels a need for a proper list that outlines which chemical or chemical compounds would be considered “toxic”. Otherwise, any nation can call foul over another spilling expired milk into their backyard.

"Your mission should review Section 5."

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

[La Chonita]

The delegation of La Chonita has issues over the definition of “toxic” and feels a need for a proper list that outlines which chemical or chemical compounds would be considered “toxic”. Otherwise, any nation can call foul over another spilling expired milk into their backyard.

"Your mission should review Section 5."

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

Our delegation has reviewed section 5, which does not address the concern mentioned. The great spoil of 09 destabilized our sugar industry and not at the hands of our hard working market clerks, but due to the reckless shipping of expired milk along our great nation’s borders. What our nation viewed as illegal shipment of toxic materials would only see justice if all nations agree that expired milk is labeled as “toxic”. Without such an agreement, the definition remains in the hands of those who control the proposed TMC.