NationStates

The World Assembly,

Applauding the notable efforts by member nations to protect the environment.

Recognizing that, in some cases, hydraulic fracturing (widely known as “fracking”) has negative impacts on local environments, many of which are mentioned in the target resolution.

Noting that these impacts are not widely observed across hydraulic fracturing operations, especially given the wide range of environments in WA member nations.

Aware that the target resolution is detrimental to the economies of WA member nations, especially those that are reliant on the sale and transfer of oil and natural gas to other nations. This makes such member nations non-competitive against other, non-member nations not following the restrictions set out in the resolution.

Noting the resolution is intentionally vague, using terms like "close range" and "significant threat" without defining such terms, making it impossible to ensure compliance in WA member states.

Believing this to be an issue that can be solved by member nations, with little to no guidance from this esteemed World Assembly.

Hereby repeals GA#417 “Restrictions On Hydraulic Fracturing.”

I'm open to any suggestions, questions, or comments. Not in any particular rush to submit.

"I believe there should be a full stop at the end of the last clause."

Kenmoria wrote:"I believe there should be a full stop at the end of the last clause."

Thanks!

I generally like this and hope this passes!

Support!

Kranostav wrote:I generally like this and hope this passes!

Support!

Thank you for your support!

"While I would like to see this proposal refer to specific parts in GA#417 that act to the detriment of member nations' economies and include more substantiation to the repeal's claims, I, on behalf of the Nation of Cute Puppies, pledge my full support for this repeal. I wish the repeal's author the best of luck and hope to help in the drafting of this repeal in any way possible."

I’ve always had problems with the Hydraulic Fracking ban, mainly due to the fact that it was established on the WA level.

While it cannot be denied that fracking has detrimental environmental effects, it also cannot be denied that there are some benefits to fracking, namely the transition from a more harmful energy source, cleaner burning, whatever. You can argue about the specifics all day, but it seems to me that as long as there are reasonable “pros” of fracking, it should be up to individual states to determine the balance of the cost and benefit in their country. Might be worth it to add something like

“Believing that member states should have flexibility to analyze the costs and benefits of fracking within their nation for themselves”

This is also not an “either or” argument like the resolution makes it out to be; the prohibition is a drastic solution to a multifaceted problem. Fracking is not a new practice. Much of the adverse effects can be attributed to past fracking efforts done improperly, well failures, and lack of adherence to regulation or little oversight. Rather than putting forward initiatives to ensure that the effects of fracking are minimized in these regards, however, the resolution enforces a blanket ban, which I always found strange.

I see no reason why a state that legalizes fracking but is dedicated to strict regulation and oversight to ensure the safety of the operation should be prevented from doing so. There is more than one way to solve the problem of fracking rather than banning it. Might be able to write something about that.

Regardless, Stoskavanya supports this repeal, and wishes the author the best of luck in his efforts.

Let's analyse these arguments

The World Assembly,

Applauding the notable efforts by member nations to protect the environment. (argument for GA 417)

Recognizing that, in some cases, hydraulic fracturing (widely known as “fracking”) has negative impacts on local environments, many of which are mentioned in the target resolution. (argument for GA 417)

Noting that these impacts are not widely observed across hydraulic fracturing operations, especially given the wide range of environments in WA member nations. Read the resolution. It bans hydraulic fracturing within close areas of cities to the extent where it causes problems. If a fracking operation can prove that they pose no real risk of harming sapient life, GA 417 allows it.

Aware that the target resolution is detrimental to the economies of WA member nations, especially those that are reliant on the sale and transfer of oil and natural gas to other nations. This makes such member nations non-competitive against other, non-member nations not following the restrictions set out in the resolution. Read the above comment. Also, is that to say that you believe member nations have the right to employ extremely harmful means of energy extraction merely for economic gain? Questionable, to say the least.


Believing this to be an issue that can be solved by member nations, with little to no guidance from this esteemed World Assembly. If we can solve the problem where many member nations won't, why not do so? NatSov arguments are monumentally weak.

Hereby repeals GA#417 “Restrictions On Hydraulic Fracturing.”

In summary, the draft before us has no real argument other than a desire of corporations to continue their manipulation of the environment. We say no.

Quote^

1) It is a common occurrence of repeals to applaud efforts made in by the previous legislation

2) Fracking has potentially negative results just as it has positives. He's acknowledging the obvious counter.

3) The resolution is ambiguous at best. It loosely defines the base for why fracking can be prevented in certain locations and/or for certain reasons. This allows for governments to abuse this resolution or to totally disregard it.

4) Fracking isn't necessarily 'extremely harmful', it has various benefits and employs a large amount of people. This economic gain may, in certain situations, outweigh any possible downsides due to the job supply, energy supply, and sustainability it provides.

5) With your resolution in place, this wont do much to solve the supposed problem that you intended to fix... And please lets not classify this a natsov argument so that you can dismiss it. That's rather dismissive and childish.

In summary, your resolution does little to solve a situation that it sets out to address. In this situation the people who would be consuming the energy are the residents that may be impacted. There is no incentive for a corporation to harm its own client base, and even if harmed, the incidents are increasingly rare. Therefore, the 'evil corporations' argument holds little merit.

1. Its pride to think GA#417 is the only environmental proposal.

2. I find introducing the resolution is usually best. If you have any other ideas for how to do this, please, tell me.

3. The resolution makes it seem with its wording that the world will explode if any fracking happens. In reality though, fracking doesn't always have negative impacts, especially when done properly. The resolution also doesn't appear to take into account the variety of environments that WA nations are located in. Say, for example, a region with a methane atmosphere with inhabitants that don't need to drink water. I'm sure the GA has seen weirder.

4. Read the above comment. Fracking has lots of upsides, such as providing a means of employment for people.

5. Again, every member state is different, so who is to say the WA has to provide guidance on everything that comes to mind? Some things are best left to nations. Also, being dismissive doesn't help.

In summary, the resolution fails on many levels to account for the variety of member states and to face the realities of hydraulic fracturing.

Full support from Edrarin!

Edrarin wrote:Full support from Edrarin!

I appreciate your support!

"I would find at least one other reason to repeal that specifically mentions the target text, currently you have only three."

Kenmoria wrote:"I would find at least one other reason to repeal that specifically mentions the target text, currently you have only three."

How about something like this?

Noting the resolution is intentionally vague, using terms like "close range" and "significant threat" without defining such terms, making it impossible to ensure compliance in WA member states.

Veniyerris wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:"I would find at least one other reason to repeal that specifically mentions the target text, currently you have only three."

How about something like this?

Noting the resolution is intentionally vague, using terms like "close range" and "significant threat" without defining such terms, making it impossible to ensure compliance in WA member states.

Excellent,

Kenmoria wrote:

Veniyerris wrote:
How about something like this?

Noting the resolution is intentionally vague, using terms like "close range" and "significant threat" without defining such terms, making it impossible to ensure compliance in WA member states.

Excellent,

Alright, Ill add it in. Thanks!

United Massachusetts wrote:In summary, the draft before us has no real argument other than a desire of corporations to continue their manipulation of the environment. We say no.

I'd even go as far as to say that this repeal is effectively a full step backwards.

OOC: Why on earth would the WA, a potentially perfect alternative to the real world, do such a thing as basically promoting fracking or other fossil fuel based economies by repealing environmental protections when it has the ability to efficiently promote renewable sources of energy ?

New-Brussels wrote:a potentially perfect alternative to the real world,

(OOC: There is no way the World Assembly is perfect, it is filled with nations that deliberately try to have the worst economy possible and the number of utopias is definitely equalled by the number of dystopias. Hence the necessity of legislation such as this, it may not be ideal, but it makes sense given the circumstances.)

Kenmoria wrote:

New-Brussels wrote:a potentially perfect alternative to the real world,

(OOC: There is no way the World Assembly is perfect, it is filled with nations that deliberately try to have the worst economy possible and the number of utopias is definitely equalled by the number of dystopias. Hence the necessity of legislation such as this, it may not be ideal, but it makes sense given the circumstances.)

OOC: You don't get it, I am referring to corruption of which WA gnomes are free. Obviously I agree with you.

His Majesty, King Octasian Crane of Ponaeamic supports this. "Even though we care for our trees, others don't. We shouldn't force them to".

New-Brussels wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:In summary, the draft before us has no real argument other than a desire of corporations to continue their manipulation of the environment. We say no.

I'd even go as far as to say that this repeal is effectively a full step backwards.

OOC: Why on earth would the WA, a potentially perfect alternative to the real world, do such a thing as basically promoting fracking or other fossil fuel based economies by repealing environmental protections when it has the ability to efficiently promote renewable sources of energy ?

While I generally support environmental regulation by the WA, I believe that the target resolution fails to account for many things, which have been spelled out in previous posts in this thread.

Ponaeamic wrote:His Majesty, King Octasian Crane of Ponaeamic supports this. "Even though we care for our trees, others don't. We shouldn't force them to".

Thank you for your support!

New-Brussels wrote:OOC: Why on earth would the WA, a potentially perfect alternative to the real world, do such a thing as basically promoting fracking or other fossil fuel based economies by repealing environmental protections when it has the ability to efficiently promote renewable sources of energy ?

Because fracking primarily produces natural gas, which is cleaner and cheaper than oil and coal. And substituting oil and coal for natural gas comparatively reduces carbon emissions. Making it comparatively more difficult comparatively increases transition costs.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

New-Brussels wrote:OOC: Why on earth would the WA, a potentially perfect alternative to the real world, do such a thing as basically promoting fracking or other fossil fuel based economies by repealing environmental protections when it has the ability to efficiently promote renewable sources of energy ?

Because fracking primarily produces natural gas, which is cleaner and cheaper than oil and coal. And substituting oil and coal for natural gas comparatively reduces carbon emissions. Making it comparatively more difficult comparatively increases transition costs.

I have to agree. A more proper replacement is desirable then, I approve.

New-Brussels wrote:I have to agree. A more proper replacement is desirable then, I approve.

Thank you for your support!

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Because fracking primarily produces natural gas, which is cleaner and cheaper than oil and coal. And substituting oil and coal for natural gas comparatively reduces carbon emissions. Making it comparatively more difficult comparatively increases transition costs.

Thats a fair point that I never thought through, would it be useful to add something about that in the draft?

What about adding something like this to the draft?

Further realizing that the product of Fracking is natural gas, an alternative to coal or oil which is better for the environment.