NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Repeal "Industrial Pollution Control"

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4941
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

[PASSED] Repeal "Industrial Pollution Control"

Postby Auralia » Sat Jan 25, 2014 12:41 pm

In light of the fact that Industrial Pollution Control currently looks like it's going to pass, I've quickly put together this instarepeal.

Repeal "Industrial Pollution Control"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #281

Affirming the need to reduce pollution to reasonable levels,

Regretting that the flaws present in GAR #281, "Industrial Pollution Control", necessitate its repeal,

Remarking in general that the target resolution's substantial lack of clarity makes it very difficult for member nations to discern their obligations under the resolution,

Noting the target resolution defines "threshold of environmental quality" as "the level of environmental degradation beyond which an area is deemed unsafe for population or unable to sustain natural flora and fauna",

Concerned that this definition does not distinguish between areas that are permanently as opposed to only temporarily unable to sustain native flora or fauna, and excludes areas that are able to sustain an equivalent level of biodiversity through non-native flora or fauna,

Distressed that this definition also fails to take into account the limited relevance of whether or not an area is unsafe for population when no population is actually present in that area, as well as that it is sometimes necessary to permanently make an area unsafe for population in order to safely dispose of dangerous materials, such as nuclear waste,

Perplexed that the target resolution only appears to require that member nations "adapt" (as opposed to "adopt") thresholds of environmental quality,

Further noting that the target resolution defines "pollution" as "chemical and energy contaminants that cause adverse change in the environment or the health of a population",

Dismayed by the lack of clarity as to what exactly constitutes an "energy contaminant" or an "adverse change in the environment or the health of a population", as well as the lack of any distinction between "pollution" and "industrial pollution" even though both terms are used throughout the resolution,

Confused by the target resolution's contradictory mandates with respect to pollution reduction targets, for which implementation is merely "recommended" in clause 3(iv) yet apparently required in clauses 4(i) and 4(ii),

Alarmed by the lack of an appeals process or even any clearly established criteria for the World Assembly Science Program's determination of pollution reduction targets, which - assuming the implementation of pollution targets is actually required - allows the Program to arbitrarily restrict industries in World Assembly member nations without any accountability,

The General Assembly,

Repeals GAR #281, "Industrial Pollution Control".
Last edited by Frisbeeteria on Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:44 pm, edited 16 times in total.
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
Also known as Railana

"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Sat Jan 25, 2014 12:54 pm

"This resolution can't be 'insta-repealed', because of the length of the queue behind it, so there's no hurry, but I do agree with the aim, and I'm glad someone is already working on it.

"There are fundamental contradictions in the resolution. At times targets are referred to as 'recommended', and at other times 'compliance' is to be 'ensured'. As such, you might try an argument that the resolution is in fact so poorly written that nations may not be able to understand their obligations under it, leading to conflicts in policy throughout the WA.

"There is also, glaringly, the failure to define what actually constitutes 'industrial pollution', as opposed to all 'pollution'.

"In general, though, your argument is already strong. Good luck!"

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

User avatar
The Black Hat Guy
Diplomat
 
Posts: 952
Founded: Feb 12, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Black Hat Guy » Sat Jan 25, 2014 1:03 pm

Full support. There are a few other issues with the bill that probably aren't solid enough to include in the repeal, but led to my AGAINST vote as well (the clause about not causing harm to member nations comes to mind).

User avatar
Aboras
Envoy
 
Posts: 249
Founded: Jan 18, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Aboras » Sat Jan 25, 2014 1:06 pm

This seems a little pre-mature. I will not vote for it in the unlikely event it comes to fruition.
There is no intrinsic worth in money but what is alterable with the times, and whether a guinea goes for twenty pounds or for a shilling, it is the labor of the poor and not the high and low value that is set on gold or silver, which all the comforts of life must arise from.

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4941
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Sat Jan 25, 2014 1:17 pm

The Dark Star Republic wrote:"There are fundamental contradictions in the resolution. At times targets are referred to as 'recommended', and at other times 'compliance' is to be 'ensured'. As such, you might try an argument that the resolution is in fact so poorly written that nations may not be able to understand their obligations under it, leading to conflicts in policy throughout the WA.


I noticed that too, but I wasn't sure exactly how to express it succinctly. I've tried again, though, and I think it makes sense:

Confused by the target resolution's contradictory mandates with respect to pollution reduction targets, for which implementation is merely "recommended" in clause 3(iv) yet apparently required in clauses 4(i) and 4(ii),


The Dark Star Republic wrote:"There is also, glaringly, the failure to define what actually constitutes 'industrial pollution', as opposed to all 'pollution'.


Good catch! Added to the proposal.
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
Also known as Railana

"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

User avatar
Chester Pearson
Minister
 
Posts: 2753
Founded: Aug 02, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Chester Pearson » Sat Jan 25, 2014 1:48 pm

Full support....
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90
-17.5 / -6
Chester B. Pearson,
Ambassador, Imperial Minster of Foreign Affairs United Federation of Canada
Premier The North American Union
Secretary-General United Regions Alliance
World Assembly Resolution Author
Recognized as one of the most famous NS's ever

User avatar
The League of Brasses
Secretary
 
Posts: 32
Founded: Aug 25, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The League of Brasses » Sat Jan 25, 2014 2:07 pm

Will definitely be for.

On a side note, does anyone know how much the resolution will impact the economy during the time it is in effect? I am a little worried about that.
You can totally outlaw inflation!

User avatar
Aboras
Envoy
 
Posts: 249
Founded: Jan 18, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Aboras » Sat Jan 25, 2014 2:08 pm

The League of Brasses wrote:On a side note, does anyone know how much the resolution will impact the economy during the time it is in effect? I am a little worried about that.


Depends on your country, etc.
There is no intrinsic worth in money but what is alterable with the times, and whether a guinea goes for twenty pounds or for a shilling, it is the labor of the poor and not the high and low value that is set on gold or silver, which all the comforts of life must arise from.

User avatar
Normlpeople
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1597
Founded: Apr 25, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Normlpeople » Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:10 am

Absolute support.
Words and Opinion of Clover the Clever
Ambassador to the WA for the Armed Kingdom of Normlpeople

User avatar
Hyfling
Minister
 
Posts: 2478
Founded: May 25, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Hyfling » Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:44 am

Will definitely support, even if it is a little premature.

User avatar
The Dourian Embassy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1547
Founded: Nov 15, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dourian Embassy » Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:56 am

Beat me to the punch. But yeah, I can get behind this.
Treize Dreizehn, President of Douria.

cause ain't no such things as halfway crooks

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2206
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:57 am

The government of Bananaistan also wholeheartedly supports this.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18477
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:27 am

Despite my homeland's own environmental polices, we support this.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Moronist Decisions
Minister
 
Posts: 2131
Founded: Jul 05, 2008
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Moronist Decisions » Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:57 am

I support this in principle. I haven't had a chance to read it that carefully yet, but I may have some things to mention later.
Note: Unless specifically specified, my comments shall be taken as those purely of Moronist Decisions and do not represent the views of the Republic/Region of Europeia.

Member of Europeia
Ideological Bulwark #255
IntSane: International Sanity for All

Author of GAR#194, GAR#198 and GAR#203.

User avatar
United industrial
Secretary
 
Posts: 39
Founded: Oct 08, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby United industrial » Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:23 am

i am 100% behind this if you need any help the government of united industrial will do what it can to pass this repeal and on behalf of my nation and its citizens i'd like to thank Auralia for drafting this repeal of the industrial pollution act

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13582
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:58 am

Since my absence from the debates prevented me from preventing the travesty entering the queue in the first place (OOC: I was ill, wasn't around to give Sakash advice, my bad), any sort of repeal to it has my support, as long as the repeal itself is sound in its arguments.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Alpha Empire
Secretary
 
Posts: 29
Founded: Jan 23, 2013
Father Knows Best State

Postby Alpha Empire » Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:16 am

I will be watching for this if the need arises.

User avatar
Normlpeople
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1597
Founded: Apr 25, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Normlpeople » Wed Jan 29, 2014 12:45 am

That piece of trash passed, it is time to mobilize this thread. May have some issue with the sheeples that simply see "hurr, environment is good man"
Words and Opinion of Clover the Clever
Ambassador to the WA for the Armed Kingdom of Normlpeople

User avatar
Hirota
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5479
Founded: Jan 22, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Hirota » Wed Jan 29, 2014 5:15 am

My government has directed me to express our support for this draft, and has directed me to vocally support when it comes up for debate.
When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Known to trigger Grammar Nazis, Spelling Nazis, Actual Nazis, the emotionally stunted, pedants and koi carp.
Those affected by the views, opinions or general demeanour of this poster should review this puppy picture. Those affected by puppy pictures should consider investing in an isolation tank.
Economic Left/Right: -3.25, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03
Isn't it curious how people will claim they are against tribalism, then pigeonhole themselves into tribes?

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14343
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Wed Jan 29, 2014 7:41 am

Full Support.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence and Chief Populist Elitist


User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4941
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Wed Jan 29, 2014 4:21 pm

I intend to submit this within the next few days.
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
Also known as Railana

"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Wed Jan 29, 2014 4:38 pm

"The only thing I don't like about this is the opening line. It's boilerplate fluff. I understand why you felt the need to include, but the first line is important: not every voter is going to have the time or inclination to read the proposal in full, in detail. Something punchier - perhaps combining the second line - to make it clear right from the outset that there are many problems in the proposal, would be more convincing to me.

"But, you have a good track record of getting repeals passed, so I'll defer to your judgement if you think the present wording is more politically expedient.

"In any case good luck."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

User avatar
Pacifist Chipmunks
Attaché
 
Posts: 95
Founded: Nov 25, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Pacifist Chipmunks » Wed Jan 29, 2014 5:17 pm

Auralia wrote:Regretting that the flaws present in GAR #281, "Industrial Pollution Control", necessitate its repeal,

We dislike the idea that mere "flaws" necessitate a repeal. If it is necessary that it be repealed, something more drastic than mere flaws must be producing this exigency. Or at least, we think you should make a rhetorical effort to make it appear as if there were something more drastic.
Remarking that the target resolution's general lack of clarity makes it very difficult for member nations to discern their obligations under the resolution,
All WA resolutions lack clarity, seeing as the gnomes limit us to only a certain number of characters. Presumably, you mean to argue that the text has a specific and irresponsible lack of clarity.

Noting the target resolution defines "threshold of environmental quality" as "the level of environmental degradation beyond which an area is deemed unsafe for population or unable to sustain natural flora and fauna",

Concerned that this definition does not distinguish between areas that are permanently as opposed to only temporarily unable to sustain native flora or fauna, in addition to excluding areas that are able to sustain an equivalent level of biodiversity through non-native flora or fauna,
We would argue that the concern is invalid, as "sustain" connotes something more than temporary. Also, the clause you quote says nothing about "native" flora and fauna.
Distressed that this definition also fails to take into account that it is irrelevant whether or not an area is unsafe for population when no population is actually present in that area, or that it is sometimes necessary to permanently make an area unsafe for population in order to safely dispose of dangerous materials, such as nuclear waste,

Is it really "irrelevant"? It seems perfectly relevant when you consider that if it did entirely exempt areas without population, companies would just drive their truckloads of pollutants to outside city limits and push the lift lever...

Perhaps you mean that it is inappropriate to make the standards for populated areas and unpopulated areas exactly the same. That is a different argument than the argument that all pollution standards are irrelevant to unpopulated areas.

EDIT: We misread your usage of "irrelevant". Still, we stand by our larger point that you seem to be taking an extreme position (that no pollution regulations should be present required for unpopulated areas, which we might broadly interpret as areas without people in line of sight). It seems a more reasonable argument that different pollution regulations should govern areas with no population. Although we are not sure we agree, it at least would seem like a stance that has more appeal.
/EDIT


The second argument about nuclear waste is more convincing.
Perplexed that the target resolution only appears to require that member nations "adapt" (as opposed to "adopt") thresholds of environmental quality,
Typos alone do not a repeal make, in our opinion. This typo (you may argue) is egregious, especially in light of later arguments you make. We feel that if that is the case, this clause should be moved closer to your clauses about #281, 3(iv) and 4(i), (ii). Otherwise, isolated it seems pedantic.

Further noting that the target resolution defines "pollution" as "chemical and energy contaminants that cause adverse change in the environment or the health of a population",

Dismayed by the lack of clarity as to what exactly constitutes an "energy contaminant" or an "adverse change in the environment or the health of a population", as well as the lack of any distinction between "pollution" and "industrial pollution" even though both terms are used throughout the resolution,

This seems excessive. Presumably, if the proposal had defined these terms, you might argue that it hadn't defined the terms used in those definitions...and on and on. This alone is not a valid argument for repeal in our eyes, unless it is especially and excessively vague or circular. We do not feel that you make a good argument for excess.
Confused by the target resolution's contradictory mandates with respect to pollution reduction targets, for which implementation is merely "recommended" in clause 3(iv) yet apparently required in clauses 4(i) and 4(ii),

May be a valid contradiction, but we would add that this discrepancy could be a fruitful area for compliance role-play.
Alarmed by the lack of an appeals process or even any clearly established criteria for the World Assembly Science Program's determination of pollution reduction targets, which - assuming the implementation of pollution targets is actually required - allows the Program to arbitrarily restrict industries in World Assembly member nations without any accountability,

Actually we see clause 3 as outlining a process that involves working together. We infer (perhaps we are alone in this) that this involves both sides having say on things. The appeals process would then be circumscribed in 3v.

~~~~~~

In our opinion this repeal text lacks a clear articulation of why a repeal is imminently required. There are the beginnings of some good arguments, but we feel that repeal proposals that point to spelling mistakes or "lack of clarity" in "definitions" are getting old hat with the electorate. Perhaps that's just us. We think the electorate is catching on to the fact that it is easy to be an armchair quarterback and hard to throw a pass in a real game (OOC: apparently my chipmunk delegation is a fan of American Football???). As such repeal texts that just moan about little imperfections in the original resolution are getting less and less popular.

-BH
Last edited by Pacifist Chipmunks on Thu Jan 30, 2014 5:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
-Bombous Hecklesprecht
PC WA Office - Chief Spokesmunk

OOC: Farewell! It's been fun nostalgia, but RL awaits.

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3337
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:14 pm

I've been directed by my government to publicize its point-by-point analysis of this draft.

Auralia wrote:Regretting that the flaws present in GAR #281, "Industrial Pollution Control", necessitate its repeal,


Starting out by assuming the conclusion as a premise is counterproductive at best. At minimum it makes any following argument seem trumped up to support a pre-determined outcome whether that outcome is ultimately justified or not. In this case it may be justified; but that certainly hasn't been established yet.

Remarking that the target resolution's general lack of clarity makes it very difficult for member nations to discern their obligations under the resolution,


That seems disingenuous. Section 4 (and only Section 4) deliberately and specifically lists five things which member nations are required to do to be in compliance with this act, while not micromanaging the exact manner in which they must do them. If it were more exact, I have no doubt that section would be derided as mandating too much WA interference within member nations; yet as is it's somehow not clear enough in describing member nations' obligations. It seems clear enough to us; I'd be happy to converse with any of my esteemed colleagues regarding the steps we are taking to ensure our regulations are in compliance with this act.

(To be fair, the already strong environmental regulation of industry in Sierra Lyricalia renders the compliance initiative undoubtedly easier for us than it will be for many nations; in this regard we are prepared to offer aid programs and consultation teams to any nation requesting such aid or advice in upgrading its regulatory regime or industrial waste disposal infrastructure; and to be a substantial source of finance for any WASP funds that may be devoted to such aid).

Noting the target resolution defines "threshold of environmental quality" as "the level of environmental degradation beyond which an area is deemed unsafe for population or unable to sustain natural flora and fauna",

]Concerned that this definition does not distinguish between areas that are permanently as opposed to only temporarily unable to sustain native flora or fauna, in addition to excluding areas that are able to sustain an equivalent level of biodiversity through non-native flora or fauna,


We must concur that including the word "natural" in this section without definition was perhaps not the wisest choice. However, even in the worst case scenario for how it is to be interpreted, the results are hardly to be feared. "Natural" is not the same thing as "native," so we are unable to see how transplanted or even invasive life forms are prohibited from being counted in the threshold of environmental quality. And even interpreting "natural" at its most zealous and overbearing level of enforcement, we find that it is unacceptable to replace a biome's flora and fauna with genetically engineered or robotic replacements and still be in compliance; but we see this sort of thing as highly unlikely even if allowed.

Distressed that this definition also fails to take into account that it is irrelevant whether or not an area is unsafe for population when no population is actually present in that area, or that it is sometimes necessary to permanently make an area unsafe for population in order to safely dispose of dangerous materials, such as nuclear waste,


These allegations are not proven facts. It is in fact quite relevant whether an unpopulated area is unsafe or contains pollution, for a number of reasons. Firstly, some people may in the future settle or squat on the area; secondly, municipal water systems may expand into the unpopulated area to pump new sources of water for their citizens, or pollutants in the unpopulated area may drip, drift, osmose, or otherwise travel into areas that are populated; thirdly, animals may transport pollutants away from the unpopulated area and contaminate other areas.

Speaking of nuclear waste, is it really the intention of any WA member state to convert whole areas to wasteland for the disposal of pollutants? Why would anyone seek to store them under any scheme other than a sealed facility such as bunkers or salt mines? We have no problem prohibiting nations from establishing such "sacrifice zones" when technology exists to store nuclear and other toxic wastes relatively safely, rather than dumping them on the ground and posting "keep out" signs.

Perplexed that the target resolution only appears to require that member nations "adapt" (as opposed to "adopt") thresholds of environmental quality,


My colleague from Pacifist Chipmunks addressed this quite adequately. It's a flaw, but it's also entirely clear from context what is required.

Further noting that the target resolution defines "pollution" as "chemical and energy contaminants that cause adverse change in the environment or the health of a population",

Dismayed by the lack of clarity as to what exactly constitutes an "energy contaminant" or an "adverse change in the environment or the health of a population", as well as the lack of any distinction between "pollution" and "industrial pollution" even though both terms are used throughout the resolution,


The lack of definition of "energy contaminant" is a real concern, since this phrase is not widely enough used to be covered by Reasonable Nation Theory. We're assuming for the moment that it means radioactive materials, in contradistinction to chemical contaminants; though most such elements cause injury and poisoning through both means (for example, plutonium is radioactive; but it is also a highly toxic heavy metal, and even a hypothetical stable isotope of it would still be harmful if ingested). Definition would have been helpful; but we don't believe this weakness cripples the resolution.

"Adverse change..." is obviously straightforward and can't possibly be held up as an example of "lack of clarity." Plain reading is more than sufficient.

It's clear by reading Sections 3 and 4 that WASP's role is intended to advise mainly (though not exclusively) on pollution whose source is industrial (which tends to be point-source pollution, though the act doesn't specifically say so), while member nations are mandated to regulate all sources of pollution. This is actually the only reasonable way to conduct matters. The WA agency is best qualified to render data about industrial sources, which are documented and able to be not only quantified but also scientifically analyzed and generalized; while member nations are the ones best able to decide precisely how to reduce non-point source pollution (such as auto emissions, home heating furnaces, underdeveloped sewage disposal regimes, and the like) that stems from their own citizens' ordinary activities - the area in which WA regulation would be least welcome and for the most part least helpful.

It would be nice if the resolution actually spelled this out, but we are prepared to offer amici curiae briefs in support of this interpretation before the General Assembly's legal inference body.

Confused by the target resolution's contradictory mandates with respect to pollution reduction targets, for which implementation is merely "recommended" in clause 3(iv) yet apparently required in clauses 4(i) and 4(ii),


The WASP does the recommending; member nations are required to do the reducing. Surely you wouldn't want the WASP to have total control over member nations' laws and economies? It's clearly spelled out that the WASP "work[s] with member nations" [emphasis mine] to come up with the pollution reduction recommendations; it is then the member nation's responsibility to try to reach those goals. We note that without a penalty listed for failure to comply in a timely fashion, this act does not have the sort of far-reaching teeth that some nations are apparently worried about.

Alarmed by the lack of an appeals process or even any clearly established criteria for the World Assembly Science Program's determination of pollution reduction targets, which - assuming the implementation of pollution targets is actually required - allows the Program to arbitrarily restrict industries in World Assembly member nations without any accountability,


Nothing in the act appears to give the WASP this kind of power. It is only instructed to come up with the numbers - member nations are directed to use those numbers, but since there is no enforcement regime we are hard pressed to come up with a way in which this could actually adversely affect any member nation, even assuming that the WASP is composed of Luddite zealots (which we find fairly unlikely).

In conclusion, while the target resolution does contain a few flaws, we feel these are minor as well as largely the result of linguistic idiosyncracy. In addition, the lack of enforcement power given to the WASP or any other body to ensure compliance among member nations means they will not be unduly burdened if unable or unwilling to enact or enforce environmental regulations on an expedited basis. While we sympathize with the desire not to have one's economic lifeblood dammed up by red tape, the tone of this repeal (or at least of the debate surrounding it) is more alarmist than the language of the target resolution warrants even under the worst possible interpretation.

Thanks for your attention.
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Squadron Admiral, The Red Fleet
The Mostly Alright Steph Zakalwe *
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
S.L. Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Illustrious Bum #279
Ambassador-At-Large
Pol. Compass: Econ. -5 to -8, Soc. -8 to -9 (depending), 8values: LibSoc
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People’s Stick.'" -Mikhail Bakunin (to Karl Marx)


User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4941
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:03 am

Pacifist Chipmunks wrote:We dislike the idea that mere "flaws" necessitate a repeal.


We disagree. There is no reason to keep flawed legislation on the books. It should always be repealed (and replaced if necessary).

Pacifist Chipmunks wrote:All WA resolutions lack clarity, seeing as the gnomes limit us to only a certain number of characters. Presumably, you mean to argue that the text has a specific and irresponsible lack of clarity.


I agree with you to some extent. I'll change "lack of clarity" to "substantial lack of clarity".

Pacifist Chipmunks wrote:We would argue that the concern is invalid, as "sustain" connotes something more than temporary.


We disagree. The word "sustain" means nothing more than "To supply with necessities or nourishment; provide for." If the resolution had intended to distinguish between temporary and permanent inability to sustain native flora and fauna, it should have said so.

Pacifist Chipmunks wrote:Also, the clause you quote says nothing about "native" flora and fauna.


In this context, "natural" clearly means "native" rather than "not artificial".

Pacifist Chipmunks wrote:Is it really "irrelevant"? It seems perfectly relevant when you consider that if it did entirely exempt areas without population, companies would just drive their truckloads of pollutants to outside city limits and push the lift lever...

Perhaps you mean that it is inappropriate to make the standards for populated areas and unpopulated areas exactly the same. That is a different argument than the argument that all pollution standards are irrelevant to unpopulated areas.


Well, I wouldn't consider an area just outside city limits to be unpopulated, per se, but I see your point. I'll change "irrelevant" to "limited relevance".

Pacifist Chipmunks wrote:Typos alone do not a repeal make, in our opinion. This typo (you may argue) is egregious, especially in light of later arguments you make. We feel that if that is the case, this clause should be moved closer to your clauses about #281, 3(iv) and 4(i), (ii). Otherwise, isolated it seems pedantic.


This particular typo would be sufficient for a repeal all on its own. We feel that the clause's position within the document is appropriate, and so we do not intend to move it.

Pacifist Chipmunks wrote:This seems excessive. Presumably, if the proposal had defined these terms, you might argue that it hadn't defined the terms used in those definitions...and on and on.


I disagree. "Energy contaminant" sounds like New Age woo at first glance; it should be defined. The term "adverse change" is vague and over-broad. Finally, the proposal cannot apply different regulations to two things (normal pollution and industrial pollution) without actually explaining what the difference between those two things are.

Pacifist Chipmunks wrote:May be a valid contradiction, but we would add that this discrepancy could be a fruitful area for compliance role-play.


Seriously? :eyebrow:

Pacifist Chipmunks wrote:Actually we see clause 3 as outlining a process that involves working together. We infer (perhaps we are alone in this) that this involves both sides having say on things. The appeals process would then be circumscribed in 3v.


Ultimately, per clause 4(i), member nations are required to "implement[] pollution reduction targets recommended by WASP." That doesn't sound like a very open, collaborative process.
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
Also known as Railana

"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads