[SUBMITTED] River of Screams

[Jutsa]

Really got in the mood to make some dystopian anti-eco drafts.

Title: River of Screams
The Issue: One of the major rivers in @@NAME@@ was recently on fire, causing significant damage to the surrounding industrial park. Police investigation suggests that a smoker had tossed a still vaguely lit cigarette butt in the river, which was just enough to ignite the immense concentration of flammable waste products dumped into the river — by the same industries.
Validity: Absolutely terrible environment

Validity: Capitalist
Option 1a: "Alright, maybe we've been just a little bit lax with our restrictions on private industry," says @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ Stokes, adjusting @@HIS@@ hazmat suit. "Sometimes the betterment of industry as a whole is to place bans on certain practices, like turning our rivers into giant molotov cocktails! Perhaps we could place some regulations — just a few — on our industrial sector's disposal of toxic waste and handling of oil? And it'd certainly help the local environment—"
[effect] garbage is discarded in international waters

Validity: Communist
Option 1b: "Alright, maybe we've been just a little bit lax with our restrictions on our planned economy," says comrade @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ Stokes, adjusting @@HIS@@ hazmat suit reading 'Property of the People and Glorious Party'. "Sometimes the betterment of worker productivity as a whole is to make people do jobs that at first don't seem very productive, like making sure our rivers don't become giant vodka tonics, and maybe even helping the environment a little—"
[effect] garbage is discarded in international waters

Validity: Capitalist
Option 2a: "HA! The environment? Who cares about the environment!" laughs insurance salesperson @@RANDOMNAME@@, before wiping @@HIS@@ tears with a soot-covered disposable polyester handkerchief. "Look, businesses lost out because they didn't consider investing in good fire protection, or good insurance. And if you'd really like to make sure our companies are safe, you should help support the insurance industry with a few boatloads of subsidies."
[effect] environmental protection is strictly an insurance policy

Validity: Communist
Option 2b: "HA! The environment? Who cares about the environment!" laughs insurance salesperson @@RANDOMNAME@@, before wiping @@HIS@@ tears with a soot-covered disposable handkerchief made of rabbit fur. "Look, the Party lost out because we failed to invest in good fire protection, or good insurance. And if you'd really like to make sure the means of production are safe, you should invest in some completely government-approved and totally non-capitalist third-party insurance."
[effect] environmental protection is strictly a communist insurance policy

Validity: Smoking is legal
Option 3a: "The real issue here is smoking," drones your Law and Order Minister @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Face facts. The person who started the fire is at fault, and if we banned smoking, this wouldn't happen again. Problem solved."
[effect] only you can prevent river fires

Validity: Smoking is illegal
Option 3b: "The real issue here is someone was smoking illegally," drones your Law and Order Minister @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Face facts. The person who started the fire is at fault, and this is proof that we need a bigger police budget and a death penalty to anyone who smokes."
[effect] the hazard of oil slicks doesn't hold a candle to a match stick

Title: River of Screams
The Issue: One of the major rivers in @@NAME@@ was recently on fire, causing significant damage to the surrounding industrial park. Police investigation suggests that a smoker had tossed a still vaguely lit cigarette butt in the river, which was just enough to ignite the immense concentration of flammable waste products dumped into the river — by the same industries.
Validity: Absolutely terrible environment

Validity: Capitalist
Option 1a: "Alright, maybe we've been just a little bit lax with our restrictions on private industry," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, adjusting @@HIS@@ hazmat suit. "Sometimes the betterment of industry as a whole is to place bans on certain practices, like turning our rivers into giant molotov cocktails! Perhaps we could place some regulations — just a few — on our industrial sector's disposal of toxic waste, and even help the environment a little?"
[effect] garbage is discarded in international waters

Validity: Communist
Option 1b: "Alright, maybe we've been just a little bit lax with our restrictions on our planned economy," says comrade @@RANDOMNAME@@, adjusting @@HIS@@ hazmat suit reading 'Property of the People and Glorious Party'. "Sometimes the betterment of worker productivity as a whole is to make people do jobs that at first don't seem very productive, like making sure our rivers don't become giant vodka tonics, and maybe even help the environment a little."
[effect] garbage is discarded in international waters

Validity: Capitalist
Option 2a: "HA! The environment? Who cares about the environment!" laughs insurance salesperson @@RANDOMNAME@@, before wiping @@HIS@@ tears with a soot-covered disposable polyester handkerchief. "Look, businesses just lost out because they didn't consider investing in good fire protection, or good insurance. And if you'd really like to make sure our companies are safe, you should help support the insurance industry with a few boatloads of subsidies."
[effect] environmental protection is strictly an insurance policy

Validity: Communist
Option 2b: "HA! The environment? Who cares about the environment!," laughs insurance salesperson @@RANDOMNAME@@, before wiping @@HIS@@ tears with a soot-covered disposable handkerchief made of rabbit fur. "Look, the Party lost out because we failed to invest in good fire protection, or good insurance. And if you'd really like to make sure the means of production are safe, you should invest in some completely government-approved and totally non-capitalist third-party insurance."
[effect] environmental protection is strictly a communist insurance policy

Validity: Smoking is legal
Option 3a: "The real issue here is smoking," drones your Law and Order minister @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Face facts. The person who started the fire is at fault, and if we banned smoking, this won't happen again. Problem solved."
[effect] only you can prevent river fires

Validity: Smoking is illegal
Option 3b: "The real issue here is someone was smoking illegally," drones your Law and Order minister @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Face facts. The person who started the fire is at fault, and this is proof that we need a bigger police budget and a death penalty to anyone who smokes."
[effect] the hazard of toxic waste doesn't hold a candle to a match stick

[Australian rePublic]

Option 2- how do you plan on fighting fires if your primary water sauce is itself on fire?

[Trotterdam]

There presumably has to be some source of cleanish water somewhere, even if it isn't this river. If there weren't any decent water anywhere in the nation, people would be dying of thirst or poisoning long before the river had a chance to catch fire.

Either there are other sources (other rivers or tributaries, unconnected lakes, groundwater) that remain uncontaminated, or the nation's sewage system has really good decontamination (and possibly desalination, for seawater) before delivering water to faucets and so the contamination "in the wild" is the only problem.

Besides, there exist firefighting materials other than water, such as carbon dioxide and various types of foams and powders. In fact, according to Wikipedia's summary, water is about the one type of fire extinguisher you don't want to use on a liquid fire.

[Jutsa]

Actually, that does shine a hole in my draft — there's no option boosting emergency response time.
But the draft's already bloated as is. And as much as I thought that'd be a communist alternative to option 2,
I frankly think the current one's a funnier jab at the fact that nationstates allows you to have insurance industries in socialist nations.
Not great ones, mind you, but what'd you expect from something de facto black market?

[Australian rePublic]

There presumably has to be some source of cleanish water somewhere, even if it isn't this river. If there weren't any decent water anywhere in the nation, people would be dying of thirst or poisoning long before the river had a chance to catch fire.

Yep, happening now in Australia. Thanks to the drought, towns must sacrafice their already depleating water supplies to fight fires. It's really sad, actually.

Either there are other sources (other rivers or tributaries, unconnected lakes, groundwater) that remain uncontaminated, or the nation's sewage system has really good decontamination (and possibly desalination, for seawater) before delivering water to faucets and so the contamination "in the wild" is the only problem.

Not necasserily. Like I said, look at the situation in Australia. Besides, there are other parts of the world where you can't even drink tap water. There's a whole Greek Island where you can't drink tap water

Besides, there exist firefighting materials other than water, such as carbon dioxide and various types of foams and powders. In fact, according to Wikipedia's summary, water is about the one type of fire extinguisher you don't want to use on a liquid fire.

Fair enough

[Trotterdam]

Not necasserily. Like I said, look at the situation in Australia. Besides, there are other parts of the world where you can't even drink tap water. There's a whole Greek Island where you can't drink tap water

So maybe they drink bottled water, or maybe they're still living the old-fashioned way and manually drawing up water from a well with a rope bucket? I don't know, but my point stands. They must be getting safish water from somewhere, or they'd all be dead.

And firefighting water has less stringent requirements than drinking water. You need it to not be flammable, sure, but saltwater pumped directly from the ocean will do in a pinch. (It's not great, because saltwater is highly corrosive and will damage stuff more than fresh water, but it's better than letting it burn down.)

[Australian rePublic]

Not necasserily. Like I said, look at the situation in Australia. Besides, there are other parts of the world where you can't even drink tap water. There's a whole Greek Island where you can't drink tap water

So maybe they drink bottled water, or maybe they're still living the old-fashioned way and manually drawing up water from a well with a rope bucket? I don't know, but my point stands. They must be getting safish water from somewhere, or they'd all be dead.

And firefighting water has less stringent requirements than drinking water. You need it to not be flammable, sure, but saltwater pumped directly from the ocean will do in a pinch. (It's not great, because saltwater is highly corrosive and will damage stuff more than fresh water, but it's better than letting it burn down.)

Unless the city which is on fire is inland

[Jutsa]

I think we've gotten a little bit away from the point here, though I admit this development's somewhat interesting.

[Jutsa]

Ah wait crap one sec:

damaging millions of businesses

See this is what happens when I make two issue drafts after being awake for 16 hours after 6 hours' sleep.

Changing this to "causing significant damage to the surrounding industrial park"

edit: Also changed "corporations" to "industries" in the opening. If you couldn't tell, I originally wrote this with capitalist nations in mind.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

RL incidents are worth of reference and research, I think:

https://www.healthandenvironment.org/en ... re-of-1969

I'd also love to see a military option proposed by a General Adele, suggesting that we could airdrop river water over our enemies and then ignite it, to create a rain of fire.

[Trotterdam]

RL incidents are worth of reference and research, I think:

...

And here I thought this was a comedic exaggeration.

I'd also love to see a military option proposed by a General Adele, suggesting that we could airdrop river water over our enemies and then ignite it, to create a rain of fire.

Eh, even flammable contaminated water would still not burn nearly as well as a dedicated material as napalm. A more likely military use is contaminating enemy nations' rivers so they have no source of safe water. But even that seems too far afield from the subject of the issue, which is industrialism and the local environment. A militaristic nation with little regards for human rights might want to poison an enemy's water even without being fine with poisoning its own water.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Totally, but it'd be funny.

[Jutsa]

It would. That said, I've already got like three pairs of options.

For sure I'll see if I can squeeze some irl references in here though. Indeed I was thinking about that particular incident when making this
(hence why I was writing for capitalists at first), and also was reminded of China's current pollution situation (wonder if they've ever actually had rivers on fire though...)

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Mind you, I'm pretty sure we've used river water as weapon in another issue. Probably me doing it. So don't worry about fitting it in.

[Trotterdam]

Mind you, I'm pretty sure we've used river water as weapon in another issue.

I can't remember any such issue, and couldn't find it by searching the spoiler thread for " river" (I added the space after getting a few too many false hits on "driver"). I did find a couple of previous issues on river pollution: #356 and #1206. The latter does mention a "flaming deluge", although it probably doesn't mean it's literally on fire.

We do have a number of issues based on weaponizing other improbable things - bees come to mind - but then, bees at least do something that's pretty hard for any artificial imitation to replace. Sure, a cruise missile would probably work better than bees, but it can't actually do the exact same things bees can. There is simply no reason any military would use "water contaminated with flammable materials" as a weapon when you can just go to the factories and offer to buy their flammable materials before they dilute their effectiveness by dumping them into the water. Which would incidentally help the environment too, although the military probably doesn't need enough of the stuff to use up all of what the factories are producing, so then you're back to square one.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Cheers for checking. Must have been a draft or something.

[Trotterdam]

Incidentally, I stumbled across an issue by you about water pollution (it just says "water supply" rather than "rivers"), but it doesn't have a military option. There wasn't one in the draft thread either.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Yeah, may be some overlap there, given they're both issues about polluted water.

Rivers catching fire still sounds pretty different, though.

[Jutsa]

Made a few small tweaks to this one. Last bump for now, sorry about the outpoor of them.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Made a few small tweaks to this one. Last bump for now, sorry about the outpoor of them.

When they're good issues, the outpouring is always welcome.

[Socio Polor]

cigarette butt

Cigarette butt, that's a first. pretty sure you meant "bud" though.

only you can prevent river fires

I'm not sure if this is the best effect line, just something to consider

That's it from me, nice issue Jutsa

[Trotterdam]

cigarette butt

Cigarette butt, that's a first. pretty sure you meant "bud" though.

No, that's what they're called. Entry 2.1.

[Socio Polor]

Cigarette butt, that's a first. pretty sure you meant "bud" though.

No, that's what they're called. Entry 2.1.

Oh, I always heard them phrased as bud, eh...

[USS Monitor]

No, that's what they're called. Entry 2.1.

Oh, I always heard them phrased as bud, eh...

I think you just misheard.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Fun with English!

In the UK, the phrase "I couldn't bum a fag, so I had to scrounge some butts instead," would be entirely innocuous.