[PASSED] Restrictions on Hydraulic Fracturing

[Clean Land]

OOC: You can choose to not support something without actually opposing it.

OOC: That’s the point

"Replace all those clauses restricting Hydraulic Fracturing in some circumstances with a blanket ban on Hydraulic Fracturing."

OOC: If you had even skimmed the thread you would know that fracking was originally banned, and then UM realized there wouldn’t be enough support, so he changed it to restrictions

That was a mistake. Fracking should be banned in all member states. There is no positive effect gained from it, in the long term assessment.

On an unrelated note... does this comply with National Economic Freedoms?

[Fauxia]

OOC: That’s the point
OOC: If you had even skimmed the thread you would know that fracking was originally banned, and then UM realized there wouldn’t be enough support, so he changed it to restrictions

That was a mistake. Fracking should be banned in all member states. There is no positive effect gained from it, in the long term assessment.

On an unrelated note... does this comply with National Economic Freedoms?

OOC: Would you rather have a restriction bill pass or a ban bill fail? Because that’s the point of restricting it.

As for the violation, I am no expert, but I would not think so. Fracking a) poses a hazard to national populations, and b) is a means of getting a product, not a product or serive itself

[Araraukar]

OOC: Fracking ... b) is a means of getting a product, not a product or serive itself

OOC: Well, that depends on whether the people that own the machinery and actually handle the process are a company that sells that as a service to whatever company is the one that wants the fossil fuel. If they are, then "fracking" is both a service and a product.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Fracking ... b) is a means of getting a product, not a product or serive itself

OOC: Well, that depends on whether the people that own the machinery and actually handle the process are a company that sells that as a service to whatever company is the one that wants the fossil fuel. If they are, then "fracking" is both a service and a product.

OOC: No, fracking is a process. Natural gas is the good that the fracking process extracts, and the equipment would be referred to fracking equipment. That's like calling hammering a product because a hammer drives a nail.

Companies that frack are providing a service (the extraction) and natural gas as a good.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Companies that frack are providing a service (the extraction) and natural gas as a good.

Fauxia would seem wrong then, in that fracking is a service. Anyway, commerce in NEF is defined to include services, of which fracking is an example.

[United Massachusetts]

bump

[Northeast American Federation]

I am surprised the authors of this proposal chose to focus only on the matter of water contamination and did not note the potential risks of earthquakes, sinkholes, and other such activity that can potentially result from the fracturing of bedrock. Those seem be considerably significant side effects to be overlooking.

[Principality of the Raix]

I am surprised the authors of this proposal chose to focus only on the matter of water contamination and did not note the potential risks of earthquakes, sinkholes, and other such activity that can potentially result from the fracturing of bedrock. Those seem be considerably significant side effects to be overlooking.

Well then that is a reason to repeal and replace with a better policy, though. I do think it is good with the reasoning above, however the added reasoning is more ammunition to throw in with the facts already given inside the policy itself. However, neither are my say. But, seems to be the best recourse or an attempt at revising.

[Fauxia]

I am surprised the authors of this proposal chose to focus only on the matter of water contamination and did not note the potential risks of earthquakes, sinkholes, and other such activity that can potentially result from the fracturing of bedrock. Those seem be considerably significant side effects to be overlooking.

The earthquakes caused by fracking are too small to do anything

[Principality of the Raix]

I am surprised the authors of this proposal chose to focus only on the matter of water contamination and did not note the potential risks of earthquakes, sinkholes, and other such activity that can potentially result from the fracturing of bedrock. Those seem be considerably significant side effects to be overlooking.

The earthquakes caused by fracking are too small to do anything

From 1973 to 2008, there was an average of 21 earthquakes of magnitude three or greater. Yet in 2014 alone, there was a recorded 659 magnitude three or greater earthquakes recorded.

https://www.reference.com/science/fracking-contributing-rising-amount-earthquakes-throughout-midwest-c02d50a91cda5fd9?aq=earthquakes+caused+by+fracking&qo=cdpArticles

[United Massachusetts]

I am surprised the authors of this proposal chose to focus only on the matter of water contamination and did not note the potential risks of earthquakes, sinkholes, and other such activity that can potentially result from the fracturing of bedrock. Those seem be considerably significant side effects to be overlooking.

I would believe that our resolution, under clause 2(d), covers this, as earthquakes entail health risks to them

[Principality of the Raix]

I am surprised the authors of this proposal chose to focus only on the matter of water contamination and did not note the potential risks of earthquakes, sinkholes, and other such activity that can potentially result from the fracturing of bedrock. Those seem be considerably significant side effects to be overlooking.

I would believe that our resolution, under clause 2(d), covers this, as earthquakes entail health risks to them

More like property and health risk, but that is pretty clearly understandable.

[United Massachusetts]

I would believe that our resolution, under clause 2(d), covers this, as earthquakes entail health risks to them

More like property and health risk, but that is pretty clearly understandable.

Thank you.

[Principality of the Raix]

Looks good now and I do not think no one would not support it. Unless they are a bit out of their mind, no insult to those who don't support it. It is just hard to argue with the evidence in the proposal.

[United Massachusetts]

Looks good now and I do not think no one would not support it. Unless they are a bit out of their mind, no insult to those who don't support it. It is just hard to argue with the evidence in the proposal.

My API ain't working right. Might have to do a second run

[Imperial Polk County]

Drane rubs his hands together. "Good, very good."

Looks good now and I do not think no one would not support it. Unless they are a bit out of their mind, no insult to those who don't support it. It is just hard to argue with the evidence in the proposal.

Drane smiles. "I can think of one nation whose leader is a bit out of his mind, that would not support it. But... they aren't a WA member." He rubs his hands together again and makes a feeble attempt to laugh in a low, sinister manner.

[Flying Eagles]

Flying Eagles declares with 72% probability that they will support this resolution.

[Separatist Peoples]

Flying Eagles declares with 72% probability that they will support this resolution.

"72% is a C-, which is about as much as that kind of assurance is worth, ambassador. You can't narrow it down any further?"

[United Massachusetts]

Unfortunately, there is a serious misconception about this resolution that might sink it.

Restrictions on Hydraulic Fracturing does not impose an outright ban on fracking in areas in populated areas. It only imposes said ban if the practice of fracking has a high-risk of contaminating these areas, damages the quality of water, or raises another significant health concern. If a fracking operation has taken steps to prevent any of those from happening, there is nothing in my proposed legislation prohibiting them from fracking.

[New Waldensia]

OOC: for the record, the majority of the earthquakes (especially in my state of Oklahoma) commonly misattributed to "fracking" actually result from wastewater disposal/injection wells, which is a different action/issue than "fracking".

[Principality of the Raix]

Unfortunately, there is a serious misconception about this resolution that might sink it.

Restrictions on Hydraulic Fracturing does not impose an outright ban on fracking in areas in populated areas. It only imposes said ban if the practice of fracking has a high-risk of contaminating these areas, damages the quality of water, or raises another significant health concern. If a fracking operation has taken steps to prevent any of those from happening, there is nothing in my proposed legislation prohibiting them from fracking.

Well that's good in a mannerism, considering if anyone seeks to do such. Must do it in a manner that is in a manner more expensive then the profits of doing it, while keeping the public in mind as they work. However, at the same time it allows it to be possible and does not just dead-end the industry that some Nations rely on.

[Tzorsland]

We find this resolution a regular cesspool of false information and fake facts. Since we are not in the WA we look forward to its passage. Our potential profits are enormous.

[Tzorsland]

Unfortunately, there is a serious misconception about this resolution that might sink it.

Restrictions on Hydraulic Fracturing does not impose an outright ban on fracking in areas in populated areas. It only imposes said ban if the practice of fracking has a high-risk of contaminating these areas, damages the quality of water, or raises another significant health concern. If a fracking operation has taken steps to prevent any of those from happening, there is nothing in my proposed legislation prohibiting them from fracking.

I hate to break your bubble, but what we have here is a failure to understand complex language expressions. The current wording (which is the wording that will come up for a vote) is "Prohibits the practice of hydraulic fracturing in all areas of World Assembly member-states which are in or within close range of land inhabited by populations of sapient beings, to the extent that the practice ..."

You see that bold part isn't a limiter because as a limiter it is backwards, effectively banning fracking until it becomes a real threat which is just plain stupid. (Permits fracking to the extent ... would be logical but that's not the wording.) Since it is a ban ... to the extent ... the extent either becomes descriptive or downright dangerous and the reasonable nation theory would discard the later immediately.

[Principality of the Raix]

Unfortunately, there is a serious misconception about this resolution that might sink it.

Restrictions on Hydraulic Fracturing does not impose an outright ban on fracking in areas in populated areas. It only imposes said ban if the practice of fracking has a high-risk of contaminating these areas, damages the quality of water, or raises another significant health concern. If a fracking operation has taken steps to prevent any of those from happening, there is nothing in my proposed legislation prohibiting them from fracking.

I hate to break your bubble, but what we have here is a failure to understand complex language expressions. The current wording (which is the wording that will come up for a vote) is "Prohibits the practice of hydraulic fracturing in all areas of World Assembly member-states which are in or within close range of land inhabited by populations of sapient beings, to the extent that the practice ..."

You see that bold part isn't a limiter because as a limiter it is backwards, effectively banning fracking until it becomes a real threat which is just plain stupid. (Permits fracking to the extent ... would be logical but that's not the wording.) Since it is a ban ... to the extent ... the extent either becomes descriptive or downright dangerous and the reasonable nation theory would discard the later immediately.

Prohibits the practice of hydraulic fracturing in all areas of World Assembly member-states which are in or within close range of land inhabited by populations of sapient beings, to the extent that the practice:

A. poses a demonstrably significant threat of contamination thereto,
B. harms the water resources demonstrably neccessary to ensure the health of local communities,
C. and/or poses significant risk of other strongly detrimental health effects, according to the World Health Authority, to said populations of sapient beings.

You forget prohibit has two meanings... formally forbid (something) by law, rule, or other authority: "laws prohibiting cruelty to animals" synonyms: forbid, ban, bar, interdict, proscribe, ... antonyms: permit, authorize.

So in a mannerism, you can claim he has forbidden it. However in the sentence above, Prohibit is used more as an antonym and not a synonym.
Though it is meant to ban it, according to the above. Unless it does not affect the above, allowing a prohibition and it to be translated in any manner. However thing is, while it illegalizes fracking under certain conditions. It still allows it to be legal and this is stated by the maker. Meaning, we are reading prohibit wrong within the meaning of it.

[United Massachusetts]

Unfortunately, there is a serious misconception about this resolution that might sink it.

Restrictions on Hydraulic Fracturing does not impose an outright ban on fracking in areas in populated areas. It only imposes said ban if the practice of fracking has a high-risk of contaminating these areas, damages the quality of water, or raises another significant health concern. If a fracking operation has taken steps to prevent any of those from happening, there is nothing in my proposed legislation prohibiting them from fracking.

I hate to break your bubble, but what we have here is a failure to understand complex language expressions. The current wording (which is the wording that will come up for a vote) is "Prohibits the practice of hydraulic fracturing in all areas of World Assembly member-states which are in or within close range of land inhabited by populations of sapient beings, to the extent that the practice ..."

You see that bold part isn't a limiter because as a limiter it is backwards, effectively banning fracking until it becomes a real threat which is just plain stupid. (Permits fracking to the extent ... would be logical but that's not the wording.) Since it is a ban ... to the extent ... the extent either becomes descriptive or downright dangerous and the reasonable nation theory would discard the later immediately.

I must dissent. "To the extent that" does not refer to the prohibition, but rather, to the practice of hydraulic fracturing.

"To the extent that" is effectively defined, based on my understanding and deeper research, as "to the extent that it is true that", requiring one item on the subsequent list to be true.

I'd like to get a third opinion