NationStates

[Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses - Mild. ~Goob the Game Mod]

The World Assembly,

Knowing that natural bodies of water are being ever polluted by the dumping of waste into them, industrial or otherwise,

Noting that this pollution causes serious harm to life within aquatic ecosystems, thus possibly causing imbalances which can destroy said ecosystems,

Believing that aquatic ecosystems should be protected, and reducing, eliminating, and cleaning pollution is the most effective way to do so,

Hereby declares that all nations with aquatic ecosystems shall:

1. Place regulations to reduce and eventually eliminate aquatic pollution without compromising other ecosystems, and

2. Fund cleanup of waste within their aquatic ecosystems to the extent that aquatic pollution can be cleaned, if possible.

Welcome to the GA. I see you posted a thread about your proposal but submitted it without any sort of feedback, which I encourage you to draft before you submit it so others can give you feedback.

As for your proposal, let's see what you got:

1. Place regulations to reduce and eventually eliminate aquatic pollution without compromising other ecosystems, and

What sort of regulations would be helpful to reduce aquatic pollution? What mechanisms would you suggest that would clean up waste? It's very vague as to what you propose in terms of regulations. There's point and nonpoint source pollution, and the latter is much harder to trace, so you need to address how to control nonpoint pollution. I could go on, but you need to add some sort of specific regulation.

2. Fund cleanup of waste within their aquatic ecosystems to the extent that aquatic pollution can be cleaned, if possible.

Here you suggest that nations should fund cleanup of waste. Have you looked into mechanisms where the WA could help in funding or task some sort of committee or bureau for assistance?

Finally, I would look into past WA resolutions that deal with water pollution or environmental issues related to water, such as GA 107, GA 223, and GA 453. The latter two specifically deal with environmental protection and those would be most helpful to look at. Also, what does your proposal do that GA 223 and 453 do not?

I strongly encourage you (the author) to withdraw this, and then draft this for longer on the forums before resubmitting. That way we can give you feedback to help this proposal improve.

As written, this proposal is far too vague (for example, as said above, which "regulations" do nations need to place? Is de minimis regulation permitted, as long as they have the ostensible goal of eliminating aquatic pollution at some "eventual" point in time?)

I'm assuming the OP campaigned for it to reach quorum, but that's only part of the story. I don't expect many people to vote for this rather vague environmental proposal which doesn't seem to actually do anything concrete.

Outer Sparta wrote:I'm assuming the OP campaigned for it to reach quorum, but that's only part of the story. I don't expect many people to vote for this rather vague environmental proposal which doesn't seem to actually do anything concrete.

It is still guaranteed to be defeated as-is -- if the author wants it to pass, they should withdraw to redraft here before resubmitting.

The Ice States wrote:

Outer Sparta wrote:I'm assuming the OP campaigned for it to reach quorum, but that's only part of the story. I don't expect many people to vote for this rather vague environmental proposal which doesn't seem to actually do anything concrete.

It is still guaranteed to be defeated as-is -- if the author wants it to pass, they should withdraw to redraft here before resubmitting.

They have a habit of submitting unfinished drafts without asking for much feedback. Hopefully they will listen, but I won't hold my breath.

As this is terminally vague, my WA mission has voted against this proposal.

“I have been forced to issue a recommendation against this proposal. It is simply too vague to have any practical effect. This is a great shame. With some more drafting, the proposal could have been far better positioned to be supportable.”

"With no details as to what is required for 'Place regulations to reduce [...] aquatic pollution without compromising other ecosystems,', it is our delegation's opinion that members can implement a few regulations which nominally reduce pollution with a timeline for eliminating pollution that continues to get pushed back year after year. This act does little and is only a waste of our time clogging up the voting queue. Opposed."


OOC: If you're familiar with the US' REAL ID debacle, its basically that.

For in theory, but against the proposal. We could build up a proposal 10 times better that gets the job done

Heidgaudr wrote:"With no details as to what is required for 'Place regulations to reduce [...] aquatic pollution without compromising other ecosystems,', it is our delegation's opinion that members can implement a few regulations which nominally reduce pollution with a timeline for eliminating pollution that continues to get pushed back year after year. This act does little and is only a waste of our time clogging up the voting queue. Opposed."


OOC: If you're familiar with the US' REAL ID debacle, its basically that.

Essentially it does nothing because it doesn't list actual mechanisms or regulations that is geared towards combatting aquatic pollution. There's not even a definition for aquatic ecosystems, meaning member states don't even know where to implement such "regulations."

Outer Sparta wrote:There's not even a definition for aquatic ecosystems, meaning member states don't even know where to implement such "regulations."

Do I have to save my fishbowl because it's a goldfish ecosystem? Do I have to clean out the "pollution" everytime I take a bath? This proposal definitely needs MAJOR work

Floofybit wrote:

Outer Sparta wrote:There's not even a definition for aquatic ecosystems, meaning member states don't even know where to implement such "regulations."

Do I have to save my fishbowl because it's a goldfish ecosystem? Do I have to clean out the "pollution" everytime I take a bath? This proposal definitely needs MAJOR work

A pothole filled with water could be considered an aquatic ecosystem if you can find wildlife living there.

Wow. As of right now the vote is:

For 121 (3.5%)
Against 3,300 (96.5%)

Is a new world record in the making?

Yxnadalsoxl wrote:Wow. As of right now the vote is:

For 121 (3.5%)
Against 3,300 (96.5%)

Is a new world record in the making?

That's what happens when you cram a vague proposal that doesn't do anything into quorum for a quick and easy badge attempt.

Yxnadalsoxl wrote:Wow. As of right now the vote is:

For 121 (3.5%)
Against 3,300 (96.5%)

Is a new world record in the making?

If people would follow that one Read The Proposal act, the For vote would probably be zero. And considering there are two low-effort proposals at vote by them, it seems like a badge hunt, rather than making a decent proposal.

The only thing I can congratulate you on here is how you completely ignored what I said.

And the fact you've managed to have two of your things going at vote at the same time.

Honestly more impressed by that than anything else.

Floofybit wrote:

Yxnadalsoxl wrote:Wow. As of right now the vote is:

For 121 (3.5%)
Against 3,300 (96.5%)

Is a new world record in the making?

If people would follow that one Read The Proposal act, the For vote would probably be zero. And considering there are two low-effort proposals at vote by them, it seems like a badge hunt, rather than making a decent proposal.

You've said more than is needed to be said, this is a Badge Hunter, they quite literally ignored everything I said on their Warzone thread, that Warzoners probably didn't want this, I didn't want this, and I'm sure the feeling is about the same.

Yxnadalsoxl wrote:Wow. As of right now the vote is:

For 121 (3.5%)
Against 3,300 (96.5%)

Is a new world record in the making?

No. Every WA proposal has very large margins in the first hours of voting due to delegate stacks. Once the popular vote starts climbing expect the ratios to stabilise.

800 wrote:The only thing I can congratulate you on here is how you completely ignored what I said.

And the fact you've managed to have two of your things going at vote at the same time.

Honestly more impressed by that than anything else.

What did the author ignore that you said? You haven't posted anything in this thread.

Honeydewistania wrote:

Yxnadalsoxl wrote:Wow. As of right now the vote is:

For 121 (3.5%)
Against 3,300 (96.5%)

Is a new world record in the making?

No. Every WA proposal has very large margins in the first hours of voting due to delegate stacks. Once the popular vote starts climbing expect the ratios to stabilise.

True, though it wouldn't surprise me if Mynation sets some kind of record here. They got two absolute trash resolutions to a vote at the same time which some might see as an achievement, and both will lose, probably in two very lopsided votes. There's enough material for an enterprising individual to mine for a record.

Mynation wrote:Hereby declares that all nations with aquatic ecosystems shall:

1. Place regulations to reduce and eventually eliminate aquatic pollution without compromising other ecosystems, and

2. Fund cleanup of waste within their aquatic ecosystems to the extent that aquatic pollution can be cleaned, if possible.

"I don't know," says Deputy Ambassador Roweina pensively, "It's pretty minimal guidance isn't it? And so amorphous! Seems like regulations to reduce and eventually eliminate aquatic pollution can mean just about anything. And just about nothing. What regulations would the WA have us enact; that is what the Princess would like to know!"

"Also what is the thing about compromising other ecosystems? How would eliminating aquatic pollution compromise another ecosystem? Are you suggesting there needs to be some amount of pollution allowed, to avoid some harm to some other ecosystems? That doesn't make sense to me."

"I thought the second clause was pretty fine (if expensive!) but why the redundant 'if possible' at the end."

"Overall, this really does not meet the quality standards for international legislation that this delegation pursues. Nonetheless, the Princess is abstaining for now, only because she may ultimately feel inclined to stand with the environmental lobby and enact this well-meaning, if practically meaningless, international commitment to cleaning up aquatic pollution."

Its unfortunate, this proposal is so vague that even if my nation supports the general cause, we cannot support it through votes because we just don't know how it will effect our already basket case economy. Kishah is in full support of those who care for the environment and who put their land and people over their industry, but in order to for this to have gotten more support the resolution had to be more specific. Our country has a keen eye on cleaning up the seas that surround our home. The proposal needed more definition and explanation for it to get other socialist countries to agree.

We have no idea why there is so much opposition to this extremely basic, seemingly uncontroversial resolution. The resolution is not strict, and will not control nations. The resolution has no obvious downsides. The resolution is extremely vague and basic, meaning nations can spend as much or as little tax money as they please on the task of cleaning our waters. It seems like an incredibly obvious choice. The resolution essentially says "help aquatic environments". It does not specify how, it just says to do so in some way shape or form. How is that controversial? Why are people voting against "help aquatic environments"? We are voicing our full support, and we also want to know what propaganda campaign possibly made this so upsetting.

Lakeside Valley wrote:

The Community of Lakeside Valley votes FOR

We have no idea why there is so much opposition to this extremely basic, seemingly uncontroversial resolution. The resolution is not strict, and will not control nations. The resolution has no obvious downsides. The resolution is extremely vague and basic, meaning nations can spend as much or as little tax money as they please on the task of cleaning our waters. It seems like an incredibly obvious choice. The resolution essentially says "help aquatic environments". It does not specify how, it just says to do so in some way shape or form. How is that controversial? Why are people voting against "help aquatic environments"? We are voicing our full support, and we also want to know what propaganda campaign possibly made this so upsetting.

For starters, the resolution is so vague that it honestly doesn't do anything. A member nation could just say they slapped some "regulations" or "funding" and then call it a day without doing anything.

Outer Sparta wrote:For starters, the resolution is so vague that it honestly doesn't do anything. A member nation could just say they slapped some "regulations" or "funding" and then call it a day without doing anything.

This is a benefit! It means nations can choose how they want to help the environment, and how much of their resources they should allocate. Since the resolution is so vague, it is likely to encourage environmental help, without crippling governments or industries with additional rules and taxes. We love the vagueness of this resolution. If the resolution were more detailed, it would be more likely to have flaws or downsides.