[DRAFT] Environmental Bill of Rights

[Moronist Decisions]

Part of the problem might actually be the definition of extreme environmental harm

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;

Under this, it can include a rebellion, a prison riot, a prison escape, war, etc. I would represent it as a factor that will be present in the natural environment, not just those that are present.

[Knootoss]

I said the principle was wrong, not that the text should be watered down. I'll just strike through the bits that I feel don't fit with the discussion we had above:

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, ((Hardly.)) that hazardous and polluting industries and inclement weather contribute a multitude of lives and wellbeingespecially among marginalized and impoverished individuals around the world, ((Ns-based evidence?))

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 ((This needs a definition that is stronger than "anything bigger than a nuisance"));

2. Everyone has a right to be free from extreme environmental hazards in residential and commercial areas posed by industry; ((Badly worded and not viable in industrial societies.))

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; ((Covered by existing WA resolutions and people already pointed out why it is not viable: disaster relief workers etc.))

5. Everyone has the right to report the risk of extreme environmental hazards without being disciplined, harassed or dismissed; ((Already covered by the Right to Petition))

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; ((No free lawyers for Nimby's.))

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; ((Reserving judgement on this depending on what the rest of the resolution will look like.))

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; ((So now rich countries have to pay the free nimby lawyers in poor countries so that growth can be stifled through litigation everywhere? No thanks. No wealth transfers.))

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

[Embolalia]

I'm a bit confused by the first sentence. "... contribute a multitude of lives and wellbeing ..." Is that supposed to read "... contribute a multitude of problems to lives and wellbeing ..."?

Unlike my Knootian colleague, I don't disagree that we have relatively less regulation on environmental issues than social, economic and civil rights issues. (Not commenting at this point on whether that is good or bad.) We keep space clean, protect endangered species, restrict offshore drilling to where it can be done safely, prohibit single-hulled tankers, and wave a hand at sustainability research. Water pollution is kind of but not really covered. And we might or might not end up with fishing quotas soon, God help us. And that's it. Nothing in there about air or ground contamination, deforestation, or any number of other things. Not saying there needs to be, just that there isn't.

I agree, however, that we can not grant a universal right to freedom from environmental hazards, certainly not as defined here. The second clause might, might be viable with a less all-inclusive definition. That definition could include just about anything. Truck traffic creates a drastic increase in the risk of driving on a road; even a light delivery truck will demolish a smaller subcompact.

All that said, I don't know that this isn't a productive direction to take. It may well prove worth perusing. We shall see.

-E. Rory Hywel
WA Ambassador for Embolalia

[Unibot II]

How'll about just a definition that lists some of the major extreme environmental hazards, as not to be fully inclusive? Then says it has to be an incarnation of that hazard that is real, probable to cause great bodily harm and lives.

Then instead of the second clause, I used something along the lines of this:

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;

If you guys are really aloof with the idea of that as a right.

2. Domestic industries must be 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;

[Moronist Decisions]

How'll about just a definition that lists some of the major extreme environmental hazards, as not to be fully inclusive? Then says it has to be an incarnation of that hazard that is real, probable to cause great bodily harm and lives.

FWIW, my main problem with your definition is that it would have included human hazards as an environmental hazard. I'd like to see something like:

An extreme environmental hazard shall be defined as a threat to a general population’s lives or wellbeing due to conditions present in the natural environment other than the direct actions of sapient beings which can conceivably cause significant bodily harm.

Not perfect, but that's one idea. I can't speak for Dr. Koopman, of course.

Dr. Johannes Frick
Chief Representative

[Budisel]

I, president Du' lami of the small, focused nation of Budisel, express my country's full support behind this proposal. Whether or not this proposal makes it into the General Assembly's voting booth does not dismiss the fact that environmental hazards in industries around the world are exteremely dangerous, for both workers and civilians, making it necessary for these hard working men and women to receive rights and protection, along with legal aid.

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

Anyone with a job can quit at any time they want without having to be given the right to, unless
they're binded by a contract, which I'm sure is what this clause is referring to. This clause re-
defines legal rights already in place, so try beefing up this definition to apply to bindings.

For instance

Everyone has the right to not be forced or coerced to do work that will pose an extreme environmental hazard, even if they are binded by contract or law;

This right would therefor apply to workers with contract obligations, and inmates with legal obligations. Like what was said before, you cannot force a human to do anything, so the idea behind providing contracts that specify labor as "life threatening" doesn't make any sense. I don't want the unemployed taking on dangerous employment prospects just because they need some cash to live well.

The people of my country are all for this bill, with a 71% approval rating, and a 39-11 majority in Duraj (Congress with one representative for every 2 million people.)

The only thing we'd like to see from this now is the further protection from contract and legal bindings.

Thank you.

[Philimbesi]

and inclement weather

Nigel began reading the proposal, stopped, removed his glasses, cleaned them, returned them to his face and read again... he raises his eyebrows and says.. "Wait? We're in charge of the weather now?"

[Unibot II]

and inclement weather

Nigel began reading the proposal, stopped, removed his glasses, cleaned them, returned them to his face and read again... he raises his eyebrows and says.. "Wait? We're in charge of the weather now?"

It asks member-nations to ensure information about inclement weather is disseminated, or at the very least, not withdrawn, falsified etc.

[Seatopia]

If I may be so bold, this resolution has far too many loop holes and far too little accountability.

Given their extreme dangers that they pose to the safety and health of citizens and the envrionmental destructions that effects everyone, why should extreme environmental hazards even be allowed in the first place?