Right to Quality Environment Act [Draft/Idea]

[Great Nepal WA]

"Right to Quality Environment Act"
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

---

Category:Human Rights/Environmental (?)

Strength: Mild

Recognizing the negative impact of poor environment on not only the wild life but health of sentient species through out the universe.

Realizing the debate concerning environment and national sovereignty inside its sovereign borders.

However further realizing that negative environmental effect by a nation inside its sovereign borders is to affect other nations, which lie beyond its sovereign borders.

Recognizing that all sentient species have right to live in a habitable and clean environment.

However realizes that many developing and underdeveloped nations do exist within the universe, whose development must not be hindered.

Therefore encourages nations to carry out research on cost-effective technology to reduce and eradicate effects of poor environment on health of sentient species and other wild lives.

So as to help with the reserch projects, World Assembly Environment Commission (WAEC).

So as to encourage the nations, to commit funds to research - World Assembly via WAEC shall provide half the cost of research and NS$100,000 per year to nations who are carrying out research.

However so as to ensure right to development of underdeveloped/ developing nations is protected; following shall be left to national discretion:
- Emission laws
- Environmental researches
- Compensation [or lack of thereof] to nations or people possibly effected by environmental pollution.

Tasks WAEC with ensuring that research is being done; if it is claimed to be being done. Should the WAEC find that nation was deliberately deceiving world assembly, it shall be asked to pay back all the money with a fine of 20% on the total amount of money given.

Suggestions?

[Mahaj WA Seat]

WAEC?

[Ardchoille]

World Assembly Environmental Council, in #42, repealed by #152. However, the Rules say:

... Should the Resolution that creates the committee be Repealed, the committee will continue to exist, but in a reduced capacity...

So he's okay using WAEC for this new purpose.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Committees can be reused, but I am not sure about fixed amounts of money in dollars because it may fail the RL rule, unless it is interpreted as a universal standard dollar by default?

[Moronist Decisions]

Committees can be reused, but I am not sure about fixed amounts of money in dollars because it may fail the RL rule, unless it is interpreted as a universal standard dollar by default?

$100000 is a pittance, assuming that it has the same value as the US currency. (RL: a typical NIH grant for *one lab* would be for $750k-1m, over 3-4 years). We object to this clause having a specific amount. Furthermore, it's not clear whether that's for the multiverse or for each nation.

Either way, it's fairly toothless to me, especially given the clarifying clause. Is this aimed at being a blocker?

[Great Nepal WA]

Committees can be reused, but I am not sure about fixed amounts of money in dollars because it may fail the RL rule, unless it is interpreted as a universal standard dollar by default?

$100000 is a pittance, assuming that it has the same value as the US currency. (RL: a typical NIH grant for *one lab* would be for $750k-1m, over 3-4 years). We object to this clause having a specific amount. Furthermore, it's not clear whether that's for the multiverse or for each nation.

Either way, it's fairly toothless to me, especially given the clarifying clause. Is this aimed at being a blocker?

Well, we assumed that $100,000 per year should be an encouragement considering the fact that WA is covering for half of the cost of research anyway.

[Great Nepal WA]

Committees can be reused, but I am not sure about fixed amounts of money in dollars because it may fail the RL rule, unless it is interpreted as a universal standard dollar by default?

It is meant to be NS$. Should have clarified that, edited. Thanx

[Darenjo]

Are you allowed to specifically refer to the NSuniverse? Sorry, but it seems that it would be pushing the RL rule.

[Mahaj WA Seat]

Are you allowed to specifically refer to the NSuniverse? Sorry, but it seems that it would be pushing the RL rule.

OOC: Why not? Why couldn't the IC world be advanced enough to name their universe? Maybe they called it N Suniverse, like a sun based verse or something, but combined it, and made it NSuniverse.

[Ardchoille]

Just in case anyone thought that my okay on using the WAEC was an okay for the entire proposal: it wasn't. There are quite a few problems here which I'm leaving to other players to address. On the question of the "NS universe", we've had proposals refer to the Multiverse, though I'm not sure if any have made it into the queue, but I don't really see a need to use it here anyway.

The word on proposals is the same as the word on wearing a fashion trend: when in doubt, don't.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

World Assembly Environmental Council, in #42, repealed by #152. However, the Rules say:

... Should the Resolution that creates the committee be Repealed, the committee will continue to exist, but in a reduced capacity...

So he's okay using WAEC for this new purpose.

Actually the rule says:

A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existance; however, you may assign duties to an existing committee. Should the Resolution that creates the committe be Repealed, the committee will continue to exist, but in a reduced capacity.

Is a committee from a repealed resolution an "existing committee"? Don't see why Hack would specifically qualify "existing" committees, if any ol' committee will do.

[Great Nepal WA]

Just in case anyone thought that my okay on using the WAEC was an okay for the entire proposal: it wasn't. There are quite a few problems here which I'm leaving to other players to address. On the question of the "NS universe", we've had proposals refer to the Multiverse, though I'm not sure if any have made it into the queue, but I don't really see a need to use it here anyway.

The word on proposals is the same as the word on wearing a fashion trend: when in doubt, don't.

Aye, changed to hopefully remove the doubt...
(although, I accept that the name is bit uncreative - but I could not think of any other names)...

So any suggestions on the draft?

[Sagatagan]

While we applaud the interest in the environment, Sagatagan opposes any act that could be construed as a replacement of the recently repealed act, unless it includes an international environmental arbitration clause. We moreover feel it is disingenuous to portray the argument against such arbitration as one that is in the best interests of developing nations. It is the developing nations that often carry the heavy burden of environmental damages originating in the developed world. We must insist on a body empowered for arbitration of environmental degradation between nations and to the internationally shared environment.

[Ardchoille]

World Assembly Environmental Council, in #42, repealed by #152. However, the Rules say:

So he's okay using WAEC for this new purpose.

Actually the rule says:

A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existance; however, you may assign duties to an existing committee. Should the Resolution that creates the committe be Repealed, the committee will continue to exist, but in a reduced capacity.

Is a committee from a repealed resolution an "existing committee"? Don't see why Hack would specifically qualify "existing" committees, if any ol' committee will do.

If "you may assign duties to an existing committee" and, after the resolution's repealed, "the committee will continue to exist", I don't see the problem.

Though I do imagine the Gnomes' tea-room is full of the members of repealed resolutions' committees, sitting around and arguing passionately about the latest episode of Bigtopians Say the Darndest Things while they wait to be rediscovered.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

"the committee will continue to exist, but in a reduced capacity," implies "if other resolutions have chosen to utilize it, the committee will still do what the other resolutions have tasked it for." I can't imagine what "capacity" a committee could possibly have if the only resolution to utilize it has been stricken from the record. And I'm pretty sure Hack would not have specified that authors may task "existing committees" if all committees are extant, whether their resolutions are repealed or not.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Isn't this committee rule moot here? The proposal would be creating the WAEC. It doesn't really matter if the original resolution was repealed.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Nevermind. The name isn't even the same - WA Environmental Council vs. World Assembly Environment Commission.

[Ardchoille]

Isn't this committee rule moot here? The proposal would be creating the WAEC.

Nevermind. The name isn't even the same - WA Environmental Council vs. World Assembly Environment Commission.

Now that technical point I can live with, and thanks for pointing it out. Great Nepal, you'll have to make it clearer that you're creating a new committee. And please give it a new name, so its acronym avoids this sort of confusion: WAEanythingbutC.

Re committees: I have to agree that the idea that a committee that had only one function, and therefore sits around doing nothing after its original resolution dies, doesn't make sense, but it's what the rules literally say. Since I think Kenny's right that his version is what they imply, the best solution seems to be to clarify the wording. As Bears Armed has highlighted another recurrent area of dispute -- a view with which both myself and Ambassador Flibble disagree, as seen in his comments on yet another proposal --

... Secondly, the the only active clauses I see in this proposal are these ... <snip> ...
and every one of them is tied into the committees in some way. Which means if the committees weren't there this proposal wouldn't do a damn thing which is a textbook violation of the committee rules which clearly state that creating committees can't be all a proposal does.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

-- it seems we'd better have a look at rephrasing that rule.

Which we'll do elsewhere, rather than threadjack Great Nepal's draft any further. Sorry about that, GN.