[PASSED] Responsible Handling of Toxic Materials

[Fluxoria]

We, Fluxoria, hereby express gratitude for your notification. Having duly deliberated, we hereby declare our affirmative vote on this proposal. The regulation of toxic materials is imperative to safeguard both the environment and public health. The establishment of the Toxic Materials Commission shall establish a mechanism for the notification and redressal of instances of contamination. Moreover, the obligation to regularly scrutinize the surrounding areas will warrant appropriate treatment of hazardous materials. Furthermore, the requirement to disclose research and data concerning toxic or non-toxic alternatives to materials will advance the cause of secure and sustainable practices. All things considered, we hold that the benefits arising from the adoption of this proposal far outweigh the potential detriments to industry.

[San Dogs]

I doth hereby declare my opposition to the proposed rule regarding the responsible handling of toxic materials. Whilst it be true that the usage and disposal of toxic materials presenteth a dire threat to our environment and our health, I doth maintain that the rule proposed be not the solution we require.

Firstly, the proposed rule wouldst place a great and unnecessary burden upon businesses and manufacturers. They wouldst need to comply with new regulations and guidelines, which wouldst lead to a great increase in costs, that would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. This, in turn, may have a negative impact upon the economy and the livelihoods of the people.

Secondly, the proposed rule wouldst be challenging to enforce, particularly in those countries with limited resources and infrastructure. We cannot expect governments in such countries to monitor and regulate the handling and disposal of toxic materials effectively, which could lead to a situation where the rule is not enforced, rendering it ineffective.

Finally, I doth believe that the proposed rule may have unintended consequences. For example, it may incentivize manufacturers to use less effective, less expensive alternatives that may have even more significant environmental impacts. Furthermore, the rule may lead to the outsourcing of waste management to countries with less stringent environmental standards, leading to an increase in pollution and environmental degradation.

In conclusion, whilst I acknowledge that the handling and disposal of toxic materials are significant concerns, I maintain that the proposed rule is not the proper solution. Instead, we shouldst focus on incentivizing companies to invest in more sustainable and environmentally friendly technologies, and encourage responsible behavior through education and outreach programs.

[Terra dei Cittadini]

1. I support the below post, but member nations should also partake in the battle against irresponsible transportation of hazardous materials, alongside the oligarchic, corporate goliath.
2. That last clause; if it [this resolution] were to contradict a previously passed resolution (repealed or unrepealed, it seems), it would be cancelled out altogether. I recommend you remedy this error before losing my vote.

[The Ice States]

That last clause; if it [this resolution] were to contradict a previously passed resolution (repealed or unrepealed, it seems), it would be cancelled out altogether. I recommend you remedy this error before losing my vote.

If a resolution is repealed, there would no longer be a "case of contradiction". Resolutions cannot be amended after they are at vote or passed.

[Terra dei Cittadini]

That last clause; if it [this resolution] were to contradict a previously passed resolution (repealed or unrepealed, it seems), it would be cancelled out altogether. I recommend you remedy this error before losing my vote.

If a resolution is repealed, there would no longer be a "case of contradiction". Resolutions cannot be amended after they are at vote or passed.

If the resolution contradicts another resolution, it would be completely annulled.

[The Ice States]

If a resolution is repealed, there would no longer be a "case of contradiction". Resolutions cannot be amended after they are at vote or passed.

If the resolution contradicts another resolution, it would be completely annulled.

No it wouldn't. Only the parts where there's contradiction would be annulled, and even so, only until the contradicting resolution is repealed.

[Nouvel Acadie]

Sorry, while I 100% embrace the purpose of this, I had to vote against it. The definition of "toxic" is so loose as to mean almost anything. This could have been strengthened by using basic scientifically accepted criteria such as using an LD50 measurement or teratagenic effects in certain quantities. Instead, it defines "toxic" so loosely as to make it impossible to determine where a measurable line is.

[Hansavarta]

Considering that it amounts to a legislative proposal, the term "toxic" ought to have been defined with far greater precision. I also submit my difference with section 8; a new resolution should, ideally, codify the best of provisions from existing resolutions, and contain a provision to repeal said existing resolutions, that the rule books may be simplified.

[Kenmoria]

Considering that it amounts to a legislative proposal, the term "toxic" ought to have been defined with far greater precision. I also submit my difference with section 8; a new resolution should, ideally, codify the best of provisions from existing resolutions, and contain a provision to repeal said existing resolutions, that the rule books may be simplified.

(OOC: Per the rules, legislation other than a repeal cannot repeal. This proposal would be illegal if it were to attempt to repeal passed resolutions alongside its legislative provisions.

[Volar I]

"As an advocate for responsible handling of toxic materials, Volar I fully supports this resolution. We believe that international action is necessary to ensure the protection of both human health and the environment. We commend the efforts of the author and the mission of Heavens Reach in drafting this proposal and urge all member nations to vote in favor of its passage. Thank you."

[Aingard]

Against.

1) Redundant to resolution GA 298: Reducing Spills and Leaks https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=21186265#p21186265. While GA 298 deals with prevention of spills and leaks, and this proposal deals with the cleanup, presumably of the same 'toxic' materials, GA 298 should be repealed to include provisions that deal with cleanup as well.

2) But more importantly, this proposal creates a separate committee, whose function can entirely be included within the scope of the existing Spill and Leak Disaster Adminstration, or even the older Nuclear Disaster Response Organisation, or WA Disaster Bureau, or Nuclear Energy Safety Commission. Creating a new committee adds unnecessary, bureaucracy, and burden on taxpayers, and weighs on the souls of would-be committee employees knowing that their purpose are made redundant by an existing committee the very moment they were hired. I propose examining the list of committees here: viewtopic.php?p=33608466#p33608466

3) Agree with Hansavarta above that 'toxic' can be made more specific. Case in point, unsure if Toxic Chemicals Commission's functions be entirely included in the scope of Nuclear-related committees, and if not, I dare say the existing committees' scope should be expanded to include other 'toxic' materials to allow greater efficiency in information sharing within one committee.

Thank you.

[The Ice States]

Snipped long post

598 already has been repealed.
-----

Responsible Handling of Toxic Materials was passed 13,339 votes to 2,304.

[Contrarian Extraordinaire]

"The Strange Reality is unable to comply with this resolution. Contrarians are only able to eat materials such as mercury which are toxic to all other organisms within the Strange Reality; and even so, only when said materials have already contaminated at least one environment sufficiently to cause significant environmental damage. Section 4b thus, in mandating the effective reversal of this necessary contamination, as well as Section 2 in prohibiting it from occuring to begin with, will lead to mass starvation within our nation should we commence compliance."

"Your resolution has been officially wanked."