[DRAFT] Environmental Bill of Rights

[Unibot II]

Environmental Bill of Rights
Category: Environmental | Area of Effect: All Business | Proposed by: Unibotian WA Mission

The General Assembly,

Acknowledging a lack of environmental-focused international legislation even though environmental injustices, hazardous and polluting industries and inclement weather contribute a multitude of lives and wellbeing especially among marginalized and impoverished individuals around the world,

Hereby Establishes:

1. An extreme environmental hazard shall be defined as a threat to a general population’s lives or wellbeing more so than simple inconvenience posed by the surroundings or conditions in which said population lives or operates;

2. Everyone has a right to be free from extreme environmental hazards in residential and commercial areas posed by industry;

3. Everyone has a right to information about extreme environmental hazards in their own nation that is free from deliberate withdrawal, misrepresentation or deception on the part of the state or industry whether this be knowledge of (1) who or what is causing said extreme environmental hazards, (2) where known extreme environmental hazards are located or expected to be especially in the case of inclement weather, (3) the probable extent of the harm posed by these hazards, and (4) how to avoid said harm;

4. Everyone has the right to not be forced or coerced to do work that will pose an extreme environmental hazard;

5. Everyone has the right to report the risk of extreme environmental hazards without being disciplined, harassed or dismissed;

6. Legal aid and counsel must be ensured (either publically or privately) for victims of a violation of any of the resolution’s stated rights, to assist them in seeking legal remedies for these injustices if the victim cannot reasonably afford legal aid at any stage during the justice system;

7. Anyone has the right to compensation from the offending party, if they are found to be a victim of a violation of any of this resolution’s stated rights by said offending party;

8. The General Assembly shall work with relevant non-governmental organizations to organize programs for the training of legal professionals and the provision of legal aid in the most impoverished member-states deemed by the WA General Accounting Office as genuinely unable to economically support the requirements of this document;

9. All member-states should take care in making sure that economic development is balanced with environmental and human security.

"BAM!" said Kuno as he squashed a black fly against his desk. "Got you, you pest."

Kuno had been spending the past few months living off of the funds for the Unibotian WA Office that Eduard had embezzled from the World Assembly and left to him upon his sudden departure to outer space; whilst entertaining an invitation to join the Goobergunchia WA Office as a clerk, Kuno had submitted one of Eduard's old drafts to the floor for drafting, including in it his own ideas on civil legal aid.

[Moronist Decisions]

3. Everyone has a right to information about extreme environmental hazards whether this be knowledge of (1) who or what is causing said extreme environmental hazards, (2) where known extreme environmental hazards are located or expected to be especially in the case of inclement weather, (3) the probable extent of the harm posed by these hazards, and (4) how to avoid said harm; deliberate withdrawal, misrepresentation, or deception of this information on the part of government or industry shall be taken as a violation of this right;

Incidentally, what about risks that are not known, and cannot be known, at present (or at the time of communication)?

4. Everyone has the right to not be forced or coerced to do work that will pose an extreme environmental hazard;

This would be dangerous to society if, say, a nuclear meltdown occurred and workers were needed to contain this meltdown. I would recommend rewriting this as

4. Everyone has the right to not be forced or coerced to do work that will pose an extreme environmental hazard, unless said risk is minimized through the provision of protective equipment;

7. Anyone has the right to compensation, if they are found to be a victim of a violation of any of this resolution’s stated rights;

From whom?

[Enheightening]

I would not recommend that last change at all, Ambassador. Sure, you're talking about life or death situations here. And if a man is a firefighter and he has to go into a burning building to try and save someone he probably will. Whether or not he's wearing his boots and whether or not he's getting paid for it.

But you can't make a man do that. For one thing it takes away the sheer decency of doing such a deed willfully. Frankly, you can't make a man do anything. You can only hold him to his obligations and contracts... for example the military...

No, the original wording is fine. And I like this resolution in full. I would see it supported.

[Unibot II]

3. Everyone has a right to information about extreme environmental hazards whether this be knowledge of (1) who or what is causing said extreme environmental hazards, (2) where known extreme environmental hazards are located or expected to be especially in the case of inclement weather, (3) the probable extent of the harm posed by these hazards, and (4) how to avoid said harm; deliberate withdrawal, misrepresentation, or deception of this information on the part of government or industry shall be taken as a violation of this right;

Incidentally, what about risks that are not known, and cannot be known, at present (or at the time of communication)?

Well the idea is this right is only violated by "deliberate withdrawal, misrepresentation, or deception of this information". I will reword this clause, perhaps as:

3. Everyone has a right to information about extreme environmental hazards be free from from deliberate withdrawal, misrepresentation or deception on the part of the state or industry whether this be knowledge of (1) who or what is causing said extreme environmental hazards, (2) where known extreme environmental hazards are located or expected to be especially in the case of inclement weather, (3) the probable extent of the harm posed by these hazards, and (4) how to avoid said harm;

Yes?

This would be dangerous to society if, say, a nuclear meltdown occurred and workers were needed to contain this meltdown.

I think you're misunderstanding that clause; workers would have a right to, say, disobey an order that they would know would cause a nuclear meltdown. Workers cleaning up a nuclear meltdown would hopefully not be causing a nuclear meltdown.

7. Anyone has the right to compensation, if they are found to be a victim of a violation of any of this resolution’s stated rights;

From whom?

From the defendant. Good point.

[Enheightening]

Here here!

[Mallorea and Riva]

1. An extreme environmental hazard shall be defined as a threat to a general population’s lives or wellbeing more so than simple inconvenience posed by the surroundings or conditions in which said population lives or operates;

2. Everyone has a right to be free from extreme environmental hazards in residential and commercial areas posed by industry;

3. Everyone has a right to information about extreme environmental hazards whether this be knowledge of (1) who or what is causing said extreme environmental hazards, (2) where known extreme environmental hazards are located or expected to be especially in the case of inclement weather, (3) the probable extent of the harm posed by these hazards, and (4) how to avoid said harm; deliberate withdrawal, misrepresentation, or deception of this information on the part of government or industry shall be taken as a violation of this right;

So far no real issues.

4. Everyone has the right to not be forced or coerced to do work that will pose an extreme environmental hazard;

This is an issue I should have considered earlier. The definition provided is broad which is generally not a bad thing, but this could outlaw things such as jail work etc.

5. Everyone has the right to report the risk of extreme environmental hazards without being disciplined, harassed or dismissed;

6. Legal aid and counsel must be ensured (either publically or privately) for victims of a violation of any of the resolution’s stated rights, to assist them in seeking legal remedies for these injustices if the victim cannot reasonably afford legal aid at any stage during the justice system;

7. Anyone has the right to compensation, if they are found to be a victim of a violation of any of this resolution’s stated rights;

8. The General Assembly shall work with relevant non-governmental organizations to organize programs for the training of legal professionals and the provision of legal aid in the most impoverished member-states deemed by the WA General Accounting Office as genuinely unable to economically support the requirements of this document;

9. All member-states should take care in making sure that economic development is balanced with environmental and human security.

All nice and feel good legislation. Not the worst draft I've read on the subject, that's for sure.

[Unibot II]

]
This is an issue I should have considered earlier. The definition provided is broad which is generally not a bad thing, but this could outlaw things such as jail work etc.

I realize that people who do jail work are marginalized peoples (aka. "scum"), but surely if they have an environmental and social conscience, we should be approving of that conscience and give them some sort of community service doing something else less harmful to society?

I mean, should we really be normalizing crimes against the environment and humanity for criminals?

[Moronist Decisions]

This would be dangerous to society if, say, a nuclear meltdown occurred and workers were needed to contain this meltdown.

I think you're misunderstanding that clause; workers would have a right to, say, disobey an order that they would know would cause a nuclear meltdown. Workers cleaning up a nuclear meltdown would hopefully not be causing a nuclear meltdown.

The problem is that the original wording is not clear in our opinion. I'd recommend changing this to

4. Everyone has the right to not be forced or coerced to do work that can reasonably cause an extreme environmental hazard;

[Christian Democrats]

Here here!

Webpage that you should visit

[Knootoss]

Nay. This proposal is simply not practicable and would force the dismantlement of all industry in densely populated states.

[Knootoss]

I'll go further than that: had this proposal been in force during the 1850s, Knootoss would still be an agrarian society.

[Tedoka]

I, Raghnailt Johnson, Tedokan Delegate to the World Assembly, finds this current version of draft GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE.The Kingdom agrees on most of the points raised on this draft. But let me present my opinion in this specific part:

7. Anyone has the right to compensation, if they are found to be a victim of a violation of any of this resolution’s stated rights;

This needs to be specified to something like (in bold)

Anyone has the right to compensation from the offending party, if they are found to be a victim of a violation of any of this resolution’s stated rights by said offending party;

[Unibot II]

Nay. This proposal is simply not practicable and would force the dismantlement of all industry in densely populated states.

How so, ambassador? Are urban areas in Knootoss currently threatened by environmental hazards to the lives and wellbeing of the residents in said land?

[Enheightening]

The unresolved issue at hand is that perhaps--

4. Everyone has the right to not be forced or coerced to do work that can reasonably cause an extreme environmental hazard;

Should be the replacement? I say no. Without going back to reread the original I say it should say something like this... and I imagine it does...

"Everyone has the right to not be coerced or otherwise physically forced to do work that can reasonably cause ill effects on the body such as burning, irritation, or lightheadedness."

As far as the environmental hazard itself goes there is legislation prohibiting great magnitudes of radioactive waste I'm sure we're in no danger of legally contracting prisoners to work at nuclear reactors don't worry. Lets stick to the point.

[Unibot II]

As far as the environmental hazard itself goes there is legislation prohibiting great magnitudes of radioactive waste I'm sure we're in no danger of legally contracting prisoners to work at nuclear reactors don't worry. Lets stick to the point.

No, there is more environmental hazards than radioactive waste and I believe those resolutions only deal with clean-ups, not prevention ... which is of course, a testament to the historically aloof body on environmental issues that the WA has been : afraid to accept relatively small financial costs for sustainability and safety and prevention, willing to accept high financial and social costs for environmental catastrophes. It's purely bad administrative practices on the part of member-states, when the equivalent to the CoCR or the FoE for environmentalism was the WA Environmental Council: a resolution so toothless, it was repealed for being toothless.

We already have Workplace Safety Standards Act to guarantee the right of workers to be safe in their working environment. What this clause is supposed to do instead is basically establish through a rights-model that these environmental-hazards should not be caused by people and if they are.. someone is responsible, either a person was wrongly forced to conduct something he knew would cause an environmental hazard or he did it knowingly or ignorantly and is every bit as responsible as the body that instructed him to conduct the hazard.

[Knootoss]

Nay. This proposal is simply not practicable and would force the dismantlement of all industry in densely populated states.

How so, ambassador? Are urban areas in Knootoss currently threatened by environmental hazards to the lives and wellbeing of the residents in said land?

The answer to that smartass question is, of course, 'yes'. And the answer is going to be 'yes' in every single developed country, whether you have actually realised it or not. The output of such VILE AND EVIL [TM] phenomenon as roads, power plants, hospitals, prisons, business parks, chemical processing plants, air ports, sea ports, blimp refuelling stations, mobile telephone network masts etcetera may all constitute a threat to the lives or wellbeing of the yokels who happen to live near them. This is a fact of life.

It is also a fact of life that not every country has a huge convenient ever-expanding desert in which they can conveniently place all roads, power plants, hospitals, prisons, business parks, chemical processing plants, air ports, sea ports, blimp refuelling stations and mobile telephone network masts so as to avoid ever building any of those near any residential zones. In fact, historically, most countries in fact have them close together because the people who live near such things tend to use them or work in them.

This proposal is pretty much the ultimate wet dream for the NIMBY movement: "sure, we want economic development, just not anywhere near where I live!"

The provisions of this act, from the idea that businesses should always be the ones to move to the god-damned free trial attorneys for NIMBIES and the mandatory "compensation", are all designed to bring economic development in the World Assembly to a screeching halt and to entangle anyone who wants to do anything in the World Assembly in years of furious litigation by their neighbours.

Unless the provisions of this act are reduced to being purely informational, Knootoss is steadfastly opposed to it.

[Knootoss]

Going over the NIMBY article this proposal is actually more BANANA, enshrining the principle of Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone in international law.

[Unibot II]

The answer to that smartass question is, of course, 'yes'. And the answer is going to be 'yes' in every single developed country, whether you have actually realised it or not. The output of such VILE AND EVIL [TM] phenomenon as roads, power plants, hospitals, prisons, business parks, chemical processing plants, air ports, sea ports, blimp refuelling stations, mobile telephone network masts etcetera may all constitute a threat to the lives or wellbeing of the yokels who happen to live near them. This is a fact of life.

Not everyone concerned about the environmental impact of things in their area is a NIMBY, the difference between a NIMBY and a reasonable person is the actual threat, whether it's real and probable. NIMBYs generally are lampooned for opposing infrastructure that hardly threatens their lives or wellbeing, like for example, the people who protest windmills being built because they could possibly cause ear damage or be annoying or something etc.

If, for example, a chemical processing plant is not really safe for a residential area -- perhaps they're not following any sort of standards (or even required to follow any standards), then that should constitute a violation of an environmental right if its a real, probable threat to lives and wellbeing.

I'm more than willing to try to work with you to get these resolution terms written in a way that's acceptable. So long as you concede there are in fact instances of environmental hazards that are unsafe and should be better kept in check by member-nations, I have no problem working with you to ensure these rights don't encapsulate your everyday NIMBY's interests.

[Knootoss]

There are plenty of times when NIMBY's are facing an actual risk, as is usually the case with roads, power plants, hospitals, prisons, business parks, chemical processing plants, air ports, sea ports, blimp refuelling stations and mobile telephone network masts. They only ever get lampooned in the media when they are protesting things that are patently ridiculous. That doesn't mean they aren't around on all the other occasions as well, trying to stop whatever development happens in their general vicinity.

I'm not sure if you are just feigning ignorance here or if you generally believe in the fallacy that anything can be safe and viable if only it is properly "regulated". Chemical processing plants are always an inherent risk. That does not mean that nations can afford to build them in deserts. In fact, most of Knootoss' chemical processing industry is located near industrial harbours. And a lot of the people who work in said harbour and said industry lives in the city built around this enterprise.

The idea of "environmental rights" advanced in this proposal would force the closure of all these industries, knocking 90% of Western Hartstad onto the unemployment rolls and - in all likelihood - killing power generation as well. The Knootian people will be able to enjoy their new-found "environmental rights" while sitting at home in the dark.

I don't oppose all environmental legislation, but the idea that people have some kind of entitled "right" not to live near anything that might conceivably affect their well-being is a dangerous disease of the mind. We shouldn't even go there. Ever.

This proposal could do a useful job if it promoted transparency. That way people can decide if they want to live somewhere or pressure their government to increase regulations of an industry / development that they consider to be detrimental to their interests. Such a proposal would make sure that "economic development is balanced with environmental and human security". The current proposal just grants victory by default to the NIMBY side of the scale every time that there's balancing that needs to be done.

[Unibot II]

I'm not sure if you are just feigning ignorance here or if you generally believe in the fallacy that anything can be safe and viable if only it is properly "regulated". Chemical processing plants are always an inherent risk. That does not mean that nations can afford to build them in deserts. In fact, most of Knootoss' chemical processing industry is located near industrial harbours. And a lot of the people who work in said harbour and said industry lives in the city built around this enterprise.

What you're talking about is a difference of risks, I'm more than willing to increase the threshold of risk to encapsulate the tough standard, I'm looking to capture as a human right.

[Knootoss]

There isn't a human "right" not to live near anything that might conceivably affect your well-being, though. Development vs risk is a political balancing act. Make the balancing easier. Don't stop governments from actually doing any balancing.

[Unibot II]

Development vs risk is a political balancing act. Make the balancing easier. Don't stop governments from actually doing any balancing.

Yes I understand. But there needs to be a human right that basically says, you have to do the balancing act, or the very least, don't let the see-saw go all the way to the economic development side.

Here's a possible redraft:

1. An extreme environmental hazard shall be defined as a very probable threat to a general population’s lives or wellbeing more so than simple inconvenience posed by the surroundings or conditions in which said population lives or operates;

2. Everyone has a right to have domestic industries regulated and reviewed by their member-nations to endeavor to prevent extreme environmental hazards; Viz. member-nations should strive to ensure that industries are held to standards that reasonably reduce extreme environmental hazards and industries should be held accountable in obeying these standards by said member-states; Further international legislation to complement said national standards is encouraged;

I realize that there is emphasis on regulation and you have correctly pointed out that it is fallacy to believe that regulation works all of the time, it doesn't. But it is equally a fallacy to argue that because regulation doesn't work some of the time that it is useless. It isn't, and most of the instances I can think of really unacceptable environmental catastrophes exist because of basically no regulation and no oversight by a member-state. This document as a sort of founding document for environmentalism in the WA should basically shift governments into thinking as though they do have to factor in the social cost to development, even if they don't already. You should note "endeavor to prevent" is not all inclusive, you can fail to prevent these hazards, but you should as a government being trying to prevent them.

[Quadrimmina]

On first glance:

3. Everyone has a right to information about extreme environmental hazards in their own nation that is free from from deliberate withdrawal, misrepresentation or deception on the part of the state or industry whether this be knowledge of (1) who or what is causing said extreme environmental hazards, (2) where known extreme environmental hazards are located or expected to be especially in the case of inclement weather, (3) the probable extent of the harm posed by these hazards, and (4) how to avoid said harm;

We will assume that is a typo. More thoughts will follow after we can fully analyze this draft.

[Tabolistan]

You may want to fix up this line:

"Everyone has a right to be free from extreme environmental hazards in residential and commercial areas posed by industry"

It seems too bland and demanding.
Consider revising in order to make other readers understand and get a clear point across.
BE DIRECT!

[Unibot II]

On first glance:

3. Everyone has a right to information about extreme environmental hazards in their own nation that is free from from deliberate withdrawal, misrepresentation or deception on the part of the state or industry whether this be knowledge of (1) who or what is causing said extreme environmental hazards, (2) where known extreme environmental hazards are located or expected to be especially in the case of inclement weather, (3) the probable extent of the harm posed by these hazards, and (4) how to avoid said harm;

We will assume that is a typo. More thoughts will follow after we can fully analyze this draft.

Thanks! Updated.