[DEFEATED] Protecting Freshwater From Manufacturing Bill

[Rovikstead]

I just updated my draft. I included the definition of blue water, and clarified that blue water refers to surface and groundwater. I also reworded some clauses to make them more comprehensive and understandable. I plan to continue to edit the draft later.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: I'm not sure of this, but clause 7b looks as though it may break the optionality rule. It's alright to make mandates that only apply to some natuons, but not that explicitly state only certain nations must follow it.)

[Rovikstead]

(OOC: I'm not sure of this, but clause 7b looks as though it may break the optionality rule. It's alright to make mandates that only apply to some natuons, but not that explicitly state only certain nations must follow it.)

Clause 7B is meant to respect nations that do not have a form of plumbing and water transportation. It is meant to clarify that only nations that use pipe lines must inspect and fix them when necessary.

[Araraukar]

OOC post because of obvious reasons.

Aware that clean, safe drinking water in many nations of the WA is progressively becoming more scarce as it is lost to pollution, the growing population, and unsustainable consumption;

Still not happy with that, because while going by this map, many RL nations indeed do have issues with safe water, that's pretty much just one continent out of six (counting Eurasia as one and including Antarctica; Mongolia and the southernmost African nations are pretty much swappable as per surface area). And if we look at this map from 2013 (which talks about water stress, not about water sustainability), it's really no surprise that nations with low rainfall and/or high population numbers suffer from water stress. Another map talks about water scarcity and the text explains what is meant by that (so I think it's a better fit with your proposal, especially as it divides large nations per state/territory, though it seems to be mostly about river water), it further supports the conclusion that only nations/areas with low annual rainfall and/or high population numbers have serious water issues. Also, economic water scarcity in WA nations has already been taken care of, with GA #107, Clean Water Act. Which, by the way, also requires water safety, not polluting water supplies and doing research on sustainability. It even creates a committee for the purpose.

So, looks like GA #107 renders a lot of your proposal unnecessary duplication, and your preamble claims aren't very well supported by RL data (not to mention that since the vast majority of NS players don't give a shit about forum roleplay and are from 1st world nations, they're most likely viewing water issues as "not my problem").

Furthermore, this data shows why I think restricting this to just manufacturing would be a stupid idea.

[Imperium Anglorum]

But, but, but, these are all non-problems. Simply create a competitive market for water.

[Araraukar]

But, but, but, these are all non-problems. Simply create a competitive market for water.

OOC: Yeah, cause that has toooootally solved all problems in RL. (I know you already know that, but some people might be confused...)

[Rovikstead]

I'm considering submitting this proposal to the General Assembly soon. I believe it has gotten enough public exposure and constructive criticism which has been deeply considered in writing the previous drafts. I also feel that this proposal is agreeable with member nations from all different walks of life. For now, I'm putting this on [FINAL CALL].

[Araraukar]

I also feel that this proposal is agreeable with member nations from all different walks of life.

OOC: You mean, aside from the duplication and possible contradiction of GA #107, the inane targeting of only Manufacturing industry rather than including agricultural, and the misleading title?

...oh and a massive case of contradiction of various resolutions due to an unfortunate choice of words that I noticed just now...

*crawls back to bed muttering something about the annoying use of "final call" that seems to be the current fad around here*

[He Qixin]

OOC: I would have to agree with Araraukar here, though I haven't read GA #107 yet. Rovikstead, I'd suggest still tagging this draft "[DRAFT]" to address Araraukar's suggestions, all of which I think really helps out a lot.

[Rovikstead]

GAR 107 falls under social justice. It establishes the IBWS to institute minimal standards for water potability and safety and research into water conservation and production. It mandates that nations must have at least a minimal supply of potable water to their citizens, and strongly encourages member nations to educate their citizens on conservation.

While my proposal and GAR 107 share the goal of conserving and protecting water sources, my proposal specifically targets one of the biggest threats to nations' freshwater resources: manufacturing. The Prevention of Freshwater Shortages Bill establishes limits on corporate blue water footprints to prevent reckless contamination of freshwater, promotes efforts to analyze trends in water supply, finances reparation and clean-up in the event of an environmental disaster that threatens freshwater reserves, and mandates nations to inspect pipelines and make any reparations if needed.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Clause 5.b. has the massive wording problem. I meant to give you a detailed analysis, but today turned out to be a very unhappy day, so just throwing that bone out, so someone else can hopefully help you with it.

Your title is still completely misleading, though.

[Rovikstead]

OOC: Clause 5.b. has the massive wording problem. I meant to give you a detailed analysis, but today turned out to be a very unhappy day, so just throwing that bone out, so someone else can hopefully help you with it.

I'll be sure to read it over and reword it soon.

Your title is still completely misleading, though.

How so? The proposal establishes limits and mandates that protect and secure freshwater reserves to prevent the shortage of clean, sustainable drinking water.

[Masurbia]

Being nit-picky here, but how come some clauses have end punctuation and some don't?

[Rovikstead]

Being nit-picky here, but how come some clauses have end punctuation and some don't?

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll be sure to change that when I get to revising the proposal.

[He Qixin]

Being nit-picky here, but how come some clauses have end punctuation and some don't?

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll be sure to change that when I get to revising the proposal.

Yeah, consistent punctuation is a factor that WA Delegates look for when approving proposals. They look for whether the author of the proposal has good grammar or not.

The same goes for when a proposal reaches the voting floor.

[Rovikstead]

OOC: I updated the draft. I reworded clause 5. Also, I have added that it would take effect in ten years after (or rather, if) this proposal passes. I also addressed the inconsistent end punctuation in the clauses.

[Rovikstead]

I plan on submitting the proposal tomorrow.

[Araraukar]

Your title is still completely misleading, though.

How so? The proposal establishes limits and mandates that protect and secure freshwater reserves to prevent the shortage of clean, sustainable drinking water.

OOC: No it doesn't. Nothing specifies that the "blue water" you're wanting to save, is clean, sustainable or drinkable. You literally define it "as freshwater: surface and groundwater". Which, by the way, is a bad definition of freshwater (if that's what it's meant to be), since salty lakes and salty groundwater exist.

In addition to which, your continued refusal to extend this to agriculture means that you're doing jack shit about freshwater shortages or securing sustainable drinking water, you're barely touching on water pollution. With your current focus, your proposal should be called something like "Manufacturing Blue Water Footprint Limits".

You also still for some inexplicable reason have "evaporation" in the "blue water footprint". Do you understand that evaporation happens? All the time. You can't stop it. It's a physical process that's part of how water behaves when the conditions are good for it to exist both in liquid and vapour forms. So including that is like including gravity in a bill trying to make stairs safer and requiring nations to do something about it. (Which some FT nations probably could, but that's besides the point.)

Clause 2 is worded strangely. Exactly what do you want it to do? And don't edit what's in it now, explain the logic behind it, please. Also, I hope that you're aware that at least in Real Life the worry over water resources are a seriously taken cause for conflicts both internationally and internally, in nations with little drinkable water? So encouraging "actions [that] are necessary for self-improvement in holding and securing their freshwater supply" reads quite believably as an encouragement for preparing for armed conflict.

I'll look at clauses 3 and 4 later when I have time to compare this with the existing resolution about clean water.

Clause 5 still tries to climb the tree arse first. If your intention is to limit it to only the worst offenders, the main clause needs to start with that. So the current 5.b. should be the main clause, and 5.c. should become its own separate clause. You also should give the nations the power/permission to fine the manufacturers who aren't complying, and only if the nation refuses to do so, then fine the nation. Though any kind of fining means you've failed to enforce it in the first place, and while I know the WA cannot literally enforce a nation to do anything while staying within the IC stuff, fines should be the stick and nations should have a carrot waved in front of their faces first. Where's the carrot in your proposal?

Clause 6 is duplication.

In clause 7, shouldn't the manufacturers inspect and repair their own pipes? That costs money, so why punish the nation while the manufacturing company just sits back and snickers at the government's stupidity?

I plan on submitting the proposal tomorrow.

OOC: If you push it through the way it is now, it'll get repealed quickly for failing to do enough while doing too much (depending on one's point of view).

If you really want to address the issue with drinkable water safety and shortages, you need to start thinking on a far wider scale. Including argiculture into this, to start with.

[Rovikstead]

How so? The proposal establishes limits and mandates that protect and secure freshwater reserves to prevent the shortage of clean, sustainable drinking water.

OOC: No it doesn't. Nothing specifies that the "blue water" you're wanting to save, is clean, sustainable or drinkable. You literally define it "as freshwater: surface and groundwater". Which, by the way, is a bad definition of freshwater (if that's what it's meant to be), since salty lakes and salty groundwater exist.

Firstly proposal limits nations' manufacturing sectors' waste deposition in water and consumption of freshwater. It also proposes to fund nations in the event of an environmental disaster or to fund nations with poor piping infrastructure to prevent the contamination and leakage of freshwater for the benefit of the public health. Furthermore, it encourages nations to closely analyze their freshwater supply and educate their citizens on the importance of protecting their freshwater supply and reducing consumption. Secondly, while my definition of blue water is simple, I believe that it is accurate and allows WA members to understand what a blue water footprint is.

In addition to which, your continued refusal to extend this to agriculture means that you're doing jack shit about freshwater shortages or securing sustainable drinking water, you're barely touching on water pollution. With your current focus, your proposal should be called something like "Manufacturing Blue Water Footprint Limits".

I agree with you on the name of the proposal. As it stands is very vague. I plan on changing it.

While I do want to make more strides to promote eco-friendly policies and resolutions to the General Assembly, I would like to start by making a proposal that aims at limiting the consumption and contamination of water by manufacturing industries. This proposal is aimed at the manufacturing sector specifically because it is one of the biggest contributing factors of pollution and endangering freshwater sources. In the future, I plan on doing more to protect the environment such as managing water consumption and usage of the agricultural sector.

You also still for some inexplicable reason have "evaporation" in the "blue water footprint". Do you understand that evaporation happens? All the time. You can't stop it. It's a physical process that's part of how water behaves when the conditions are good for it to exist both in liquid and vapour forms. So including that is like including gravity in a bill trying to make stairs safer and requiring nations to do something about it. (Which some FT nations probably could, but that's besides the point.)

I felt that including "evaporation" in my definition was appropriate to give people a better comprehension of what a "blue water footprint" is.

Clause 2 is worded strangely. Exactly what do you want it to do? And don't edit what's in it now, explain the logic behind it, please. Also, I hope that you're aware that at least in Real Life the worry over water resources are a seriously taken cause for conflicts both internationally and internally, in nations with little drinkable water? So encouraging "actions [that] are necessary for self-improvement in holding and securing their freshwater supply" reads quite believably as an encouragement for preparing for armed conflict.

Would changing the second clause to ""Encourages nations to monitor and calculate their freshwater supply annually based off of estimates in order to analyze trends in how much is being consumed, reserved or contaminated, and make any actions necessary in improving methods of holding and securing their freshwater supply" be better?

Clause 5 still tries to climb the tree arse first. If your intention is to limit it to only the worst offenders, the main clause needs to start with that. So the current 5.b. should be the main clause, and 5.c. should become its own separate clause. You also should give the nations the power/permission to fine the manufacturers who aren't complying, and only if the nation refuses to do so, then fine the nation. Though any kind of fining means you've failed to enforce it in the first place, and while I know the WA cannot literally enforce a nation to do anything while staying within the IC stuff, fines should be the stick and nations should have a carrot waved in front of their faces first. Where's the carrot in your proposal?

On my next draft, I will clarify that this clause is meant to target the worst offenders. I will also take your advice to rearrange the clauses and make 5.c its own clause.

How else should I enforce this limit?

In clause 7, shouldn't the manufacturers inspect and repair their own pipes? That costs money, so why punish the nation while the manufacturing company just sits back and snickers at the government's stupidity?

I'll change the clause to make manufacturing companies responsible for the costs of inspecting piping.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I apologize for the continued lack of my proper presence here, but Real Life curbstomped my time left free for NationStates this week. It's nothing bad, just unplanned for.

I think you're focusing too much on the whole blue water footprint thing. Why do you even need that? The proposal wouldn't suffer from removing it entirely. It's just how you can require reductions in CO₂ emissions without talking about carbon footprint.

Also, if you're working on a new draft, take the "FINAL CALL" out of the thread title.

[Rovikstead]

I made a new draft. I incorporated a lot of your ideas, Araraukar. I would also like to thank you for all of your help so far. Looking back, my proposal would have been garbage (or at least more garbage than it is now) if it were not for your input.

I've also renamed the proposal, but I might change it in the future because it seems a bit long and boring.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Draft edited out as agreed.

[Rovikstead]

EDIT: REMOVED ARARAUKAR'S DRAFT

That's an amazing draft. Would it be alright to incorporate the blue water footprint limit and allocation of funds from the Joint Water Resources Management Panel to aid nations with conserving freshwater into your draft?

[Araraukar]

Would it be alright to incorporate the blue water footprint limit

OOC: Don't. The whole "blue water footprint" as a concept is a difficult one as you've found out, and isn't really necessary for what you want to do (prevent water pollution, encourage sustainability). Also, given that the aim changes from Manufacturing to All Businesses, any hard limits, be they percentages or whatever units, are going to continue to be a bad idea.

and allocation of funds from the Joint Water Resources Management Panel to aid nations with conserving freshwater into your draft?

If anything, it should be the committee from Clean Water Act, but I wrote the draft both with a committee and without one, and then ended up using the one without the committee but with the transitional period allowed. You don't really need the committee for anything. The requirements literally have the word "reasonable" in them, so they should work for all tech levels and all economical situations. If and when a nation's finances improve, the "reasonable" requires them to improve upon what they had previously, but the better off nations that, for example, don't reside on the same planet, don't have to pay for cleanup of a nation that has done nothing for its environment so far.

Also, generally neighbouring nations, whether they belong in the same clique or not (n RL and NS both) tend to help with such clean-up efforts as it's in their best interests as well. See for example Finland and other Baltic nations, and probably EU too, helping Russia to set up sewage treatment plants for the domestic sewage of St. Petersburg to reduce nutrient load on the Gulf of Finland.

EDIT: Leaving the thing below into this post even though it's no longer relevant.

By the way, if anyone is a Wikipedia editor, the stuff about closing a sewage plant, tropical storm and hurricane is about the sliiiiightly wrong "St. Petersburg" (it's about a city in Florida), looks like...

[Rovikstead]

I'm sorry for my inactivity on the proposal. After rereading it and making final edits, I plan on submitting the current draft soon.

Araraukar, I appreciate all the suggestions and constructive criticism you've given me throughout this drafting progress. Your input has dramatically improved this draft and my writing skills. I'm grateful for all the time and effort you've invested into helping my writing, even at times when you probably felt this draft was hopeless. Although your draft suggestion is great, I would like to maintain my own draft. If it fails to reach quorum, feel free to use anything from this draft from ideas to entire clauses.