NationStates

Green Product Regulation
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


OBSERVING the use of possibly false "Green" or "Environmental Friendly" terms in corporation advertising.

RECOGNIZING the need to establish regulations, or watch the environment suffer.

The World Assembly Hereby:


1)DEFINES
a)Green in this proposal as not causing excessive and unneeded harm to the environmental well-being.
b) Environmental harm in the proposal as causing excessive and unneeded harm to the environmental well-being and life.

2)ESTABLISHES a regulation on the use of the Green term on products,
a)to ensure that advertising of Green products in true.
b)to determine the truth of the claims.
c)to regulate and restrict the use of claims not meeting the regulations for environmental well-being.

3)REQUIRES the industry to label advertised Green products accurately by:
a)Removing any products claimed Green that do not meet environmental standards of the region or nation.
b)Limiting the minimum national standards to those stated above in 1.
c)Regulation on the abilities of the Corporations that offend to claim their products Green while not meeting the standards of the nation or region.

I don't think this proposal can get away with not including a definition of the term 'green.' Nor do I think that the WA needs to appear to be enforcing national laws. Of course, fixing my first complaint and then making necessary changes for cohesion might render my second comment null and void.

Absolvability wrote:I don't think this proposal can get away with not including a definition of the term 'green.' Nor do I think that the WA needs to appear to be enforcing national laws. Of course, fixing my first complaint and then making necessary changes for cohesion might render my second comment null and void.

You are correct, Leaving out the definition of Green and it wont pass, putting it in and it restricts some national ideaologies/systems, Yet adding a "National concept of" makes it hypocritical.

I really hate to be n00bish and bump a draft, but no comments?

The current environmental resolutions are: GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 42: WA Environmental Council, and as far as I can tell, it doesn't cover this issue.

I would make the definition of green your first article. It is a key term in your proposal, so it is important that its meaning is established at the beginning.

I'd also add in some punctuation and make use of the italics tag, since it is now available.

And what would harming the environment entail? You have to put this.

Buffett and Colbert wrote:And what would harming the environment entail? You have to put this.

You mean i have to state how not doing what this proposal wants would harm the environment, or about how not taking care of the environment in general entails?

No, you have to entail what "harming the environment" is.
Example: "aggrssive behaviour" is a display of slightly violent tendancy's
"Harming the environment" could be any action that results in the death of vegetation, in any specified area.

Malikov wrote:No, you have to entail what "harming the environment" is.
Example: "aggrssive behaviour" is a display of slightly violent tendancy's
"Harming the environment" could be any action that results in the death of vegetation, in any specified area.

Oh, i see. Thanks for the explanation.

Meekinos wrote:The current environmental resolutions are: GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 42: WA Environmental Council, and as far as I can tell, it doesn't cover this issue.

I would make the definition of green your first article. It is a key term in your proposal, so it is important that its meaning is established at the beginning.

I'd also add in some punctuation and make use of the italics tag, since it is now available.

Ok, so other than that,is this draft a worthy canidate of being submitted?

Way the go of killing the economy, all industries, businesses and corporations. Nay.....