[Draft] Protection Against Open Water Acidification

[Alsace and Lorraine United]

Spells aquaculture referring to the cultivation of seaweeds corals and fish farms

"Ah yes, you are correct, ambassador."

„Thank u ambassador“

[Kenmoria]

"I would change the second “for” in the noting clause to a “due to”, as the object of contamination is normally what follows the former word, rather than the agent."

[Alsace and Lorraine United]

"I would change the second “for” in the noting clause to a “due to”, as the objet of contamination is normally what follows the former word, rather than the agent."

Done

[Terra Voltera]

Queen Kagawi Yuuki peruses the other drafts upon her desk.

"I love this proposal!," she exclaims out loud. "It's well written, and tackles environmental protection and beauty. The Empire of Lenlyvit and its Colonies will always support such proposals, as we are very much for environmental safety and protection."

Believing that the deterioration of international waters would cause industries such as fishing, waterborne shipping, arctic tourism, as well as aquaculture would be crippled, along with the systems that maintain the hospitable nature of international waters such as corals and seaweeds.

"The only thing I could spot, Ambassador, was that this clause needs a little fixing. I believe it should say something like this:"

Believing that the deterioration of international waters would cause industries such as fishing, waterborne shipping, arctic tourism, as well as and aquaculture would be crippled, along with the systems that maintain the hospitable nature of international waters such as corals and seaweeds.

[Alsace and Lorraine United]

Queen Kagawi Yuuki peruses the other drafts upon her desk.

"I love this proposal!," she exclaims out loud. "It's well written, and tackles environmental protection and beauty. The Empire of Lenlyvit and its Colonies will always support such proposals, as we are very much for environmental safety and protection."

Believing that the deterioration of international waters would cause industries such as fishing, waterborne shipping, arctic tourism, as well as aquaculture would be crippled, along with the systems that maintain the hospitable nature of international waters such as corals and seaweeds.

"The only thing I could spot, Ambassador, was that this clause needs a little fixing. I believe it should say something like this:"

Believing that the deterioration of international waters would cause industries such as fishing, waterborne shipping, arctic tourism, as well as and aquaculture would be crippled, along with the systems that maintain the hospitable nature of international waters such as corals and seaweeds.

Thank you for your support ambassador! i will take your changes into consideration

[Masurbia]

2. Entrusts the IBWS to:

You should fully spell out the International Bureau of Water Safety so everyone knows what committee you're entrusting your proposal's demands with.

[Kenmoria]

2. Entrusts the IBWS to:

You should fully spell out the International Bureau of Water Safety so everyone knows what committee you're entrusting your proposal's demands with.

I don't think that's neccessary, given there are no other committees whose initials are IBWS and the resolution would most likely not refer to an unrelated committee when it has created one with the same initials.

[Zone 71]

[Terribly under-thought comments retracted]

[Kenmoria]

"Clause 9 could prove problematic for nations, like Kenmoria itself, that have no centralised system for education, and leave it to the school."

[Masurbia]

You should fully spell out the International Bureau of Water Safety so everyone knows what committee you're entrusting your proposal's demands with.

I don't think that's neccessary, given there are no other committees whose initials are IBWS and the resolution would most likely not refer to an unrelated committee when it has created one with the same initials.

All true but not everyone knows every single committee ever created and it forces people to search the committee list to see where the committee was created and what duties it's already given.

[Kenmoria]

I don't think that's neccessary, given there are no other committees whose initials are IBWS and the resolution would most likely not refer to an unrelated committee when it has created one with the same initials.

All true but not everyone knows every single committee ever created and it forces people to search the committee list to see where the committee was created and what duties it's already given.

If people see there is a committee with the initials IBWS created in the proposal, and the initials IBWS are used later, almost every single one will think the IBWS created is the IBWS being used.

[Alsace and Lorraine United]

All true but not everyone knows every single committee ever created and it forces people to search the committee list to see where the committee was created and what duties it's already given.

If people see there is a committee with the initials IBWS created in the proposal, and the initials IBWS are used later, almost every single one will think the IBWS created is the IBWS being used.

I agree

[Kenmoria]

"I would change the word “both” in clause 5 to “all relevant” as there could be more than two nations involved."

[Alsace and Lorraine United]

"Clause 9 could prove problematic for nations, like Kenmoria itself, that have no centralised system for education, and leave it to the school."

Fair, will edit

[Alsace and Lorraine United]

"I would change the word “both” in clause 5 to “all relevant” as there could be more than two nations involved."

Done

[Kenmoria]

"Then word “at” in clause 6 is redundant."

[Alsace and Lorraine United]

"Then word “at” in clause 6 is redundant."

Thank you

[Alsace and Lorraine United]

"Clause 9 could prove problematic for nations, like Kenmoria itself, that have no centralised system for education, and leave it to the school."

Will address

[Kenmoria]

"In clause 6, you don't define “Civilian Water Storage Facilities” or provide any qualifiers on its use. Technically, domestic boilers store water for civilian use and are counted by some as facilities. Perhaps adding the word “Large-Scale” or “Industrial” might help."

[Alsace and Lorraine United]

"In clause 6, you don't define “Civilian Water Storage Facilities” or provide any qualifiers on its use. Technically, domestic boilers store water for civilian use and are counted by some as facilities. Perhaps adding the word “Large-Scale” or “Industrial” might help."

Will do thank you

[Kenmoria]

"As a result of recent changes and the state of the proposal at the moment, the Kenmorian delegation declares its support for this proposal, we wish to vote FOR when this reaches voting."

[Alsace and Lorraine United]

"As a result of recent changes and the state of the proposal at the moment, the Kenmorian delegation declares its support for this proposal, we wish to vote FOR when this reaches voting."

Thank you ambassador

[Araraukar]

OOC post: I live! (In any case anyone noticed I was gone...)

Took me a while to get caught up with all the reading, but finally managed to do that. This was on first page and looks like it's still being worked on, so I considered it legitimate prey to go after. If I was mistaken, then sorry.

*brandishes the Proposal Scalpel* Now let's see what this beastie had for its last meal!

Protection Against Open Water Acidification

The title currently seems a bit off, but I'll get back to that later.

Category: Environmental
Area of Effect: All Businesses
Strength: Strong

(Just as an aside: Finding out about the Mild/Strong additions for All Businesses made me squeak happily.)

Observing that it is important to protect and preserve the bodies of water shared by the nations of the world.

I would open with something else. Anything else. This is going to be the first thing that people read, and anyone who's even remotely on the side of "but muh businesses!" reading "protect" and "preserve" is going to have a kneejerk reaction for "against". If you want to start from this, I wouldn't use "bodies of water", I'd use the actual words, like, you know, oceans, lakes, rivers... Remember that the preamble is the part of the proposal where you're fishing for sympathy and trying to explain why there is an international problem that your proposal is needed to fix.

Believing that the deterioration of international waters would cause industries such as fishing, waterborne shipping, arctic tourism, as well as aquaculture would be crippled, along with the systems that maintain the hospitable nature of international waters such as corals and seaweeds.

I'd drop "waterborne shipping" from the list, especially considering how it is a part of the reasons for water pollution, and certainly makes life more difficult for aquatic animal life. Also, what is "arctic tourism" (*asks someone who lives just north of the 62nd parallel north*) and why is it, out of all kinds of ecotourisms singled out? I'd just use "ecotourism". Or even more likely I'd use "industries such as ecologically sustainable fishing, aquaculture and tourism" as the points of argument instead, and move the worry for corals and seaweeds (but not non-coral animal life? why not?) to its own preamble clause.

Basically, separate industries (fishing, aquaculture, tourism) and ecosystem impacts (wanting to protect things living in the water) into their own preamble clauses.

Deeply Concerned that the acidification of national waters, such as lakes and rivers, would similarly cripple fishing and tourism to the surrounding nations as their waters become less and less hospitable.

You literally just said this. No need to repeat it.

Noting that nations often utilize national waters for the main source of water due to civilian populations' sustenance as well as certain industries, creating a health risk for contaminated water.

What, in this context, are "national waters"? Because in my mind at least that means "area inside the sea border", and I'm having a hard time connecting that with "main source of water". Are you trying to tackle saline or fresh water issues? Because if both, I'm going to make you read a limnology (study of inland waters, includes both salty and fresh) text book first... Also, "contaminated water" isn't really same as "water with more CO₂". Carbon dioxide is an atmospheric pollutant, not a water contaminant.

So are you going for water pollution prevention or water acidification prevention? Because the two aren't the same issue.

Alarmed by the ever decreasing pH level of international and national waters alike; the result being more and more acidic waters.

Lowering pH makes things more acidic. Also, water is wet. Basically give some reasons why higher acidity is a bad thing in water rather than just saying it's bad for industries and life forms. You don't have to give a comprehensive list, 2-3 examples will be fine.

1. Defines "contamination" for the purpose of this resolution as the act of raising CO2 content or lowering the pH level of water to unnatural standards through means of pollution or chemical additives.

Adding more CO₂ (and please, for the love of all that's good and holy, use the sub code for the 2) lowers the pH level due to H₂O + CO₂ = H₂CO₃ (carbonic acid). However, what is "unnatural standard"? Carbonated drinks have "unnatural" amounts of CO₂, though some natural waters may have much more (in volcanically active regions, for instance). What annoys me here is that you're only talking about CO₂ in this definition, but are all over the place with all the rest of the clauses.

Most of CO₂ dissolving into water doesn't actually undergo the carbonic acid conversion and instead remains as dissolved gas, just like how water also has dissolved nitrogen and oxygen (and argon too, which is the 3rd most common gas in RL atmosphere, about 23 times as abundant as CO₂ - argon has about same solubility in water as oxygen).

2. Entrusts the IBWS to:

What is IBWS? If you're creating a committee, you need to actually create it before using it. If you're using an existing committee, use its full name first, abbreviation later.

a. Keep Records regarding pH levels of both International and National Waters,

Why Are you Randomly capitalizing Some of the Words? Also, wouldn't the pH levels need to be measured first?

b. Study the effects of dropping pH levels on water dwelling aquatic lifeforms,

Change. Also, shouldn't this be something that the nations would be doing? Same as measuring the pH levels. They could send the results to the committee.

c. Make the findings of the aforementioned records known and accessible to the citizens of the nations under scrutiny.

Or just make the nations do the research and make the results known to their citizens and send a copy to the committee. As would be the saner option.

3. Forbids the act of dumping materials or by-products of which would result in a considerable deterioration of international water quality except in the cases of:

...please describe to me a situation where dumping something into a body of water bigger than a pond seriously lowers the pH via adding tons of CO₂? Or are we talking about water pollution again, with actual contaminants, rather than what you set out to do (CO₂ increase leading to acidification)?

a. Objects jettisoned from aircraft or watercraft in the interest of the life of the crew in emergency situations,

...but an aircraft/watercraft throwing up tons and tons of CO₂ into the atmosphere as part of its normal functioning is okay? Or is not okay? I'm a bit confused now.

b. Objects too toxic or dangerous to be held upon solid land such as highly radioactive materials, chemical weapons, or explosive materials,

None of those should be dumped (as in released and abandoned) in any body of water! Nor do they have anything to do with seriously raising CO₂ levels in water as far as I know.

You know Cherenkov radiation? Nuclear materials in water glowing a blue light? That comes from a charged particle (usually an electron) moving through the water faster than the speed of light in water. Speed of light is the absolute top speed only in a vacuum. Its speed can be broken elsewhere. The glow comes from a shockwave effect that's similar to sonic booms (objects moving faster than speed of sound).

c. Objects such as these must be secured and confined within containers to minimize the risk of leakage or Compromisation.

The Random capitalization of Words strikes again. And also, if something is stored appropriately, there's no reason to dump it in any body of water!

4. Requires that member nations refrain from contaminating waters used as drinking sources for nations unless completely necessary to retain national security and structure.

Check the Clean Water Act. This is both duplication (contamination ban) and contradiction (allowing it in some cases).

5. Forbids waste disposal into open waters in any form unless an environmental impact report can be reviewed and approved by all relavent nations, as well as IBWS.

And you're still all over the place. Why are you talking about waste disposal now? I thought your aim was water acidification prevention. Also, if a kid pees in a river that happens to be the border between two nations, why must it become an international issue? Think of the poor child!

Yes, I am mocking an otherwise fairly sensible clause, because it has nothing to do with the stated aim of the proposal.

6. Requires electronic CO2 sensors to be installed in civilian water storage facilities to monitor the levels for CO2 as well as the facilities to conduct regular pH tests of water no less than once per week.

...facilities? They aren't "open water". If you're talking about a reservoir, that's not a facility. It's an artificial lake. And yes there's a difference. Also, CO₂ levels are not equal everywhere in any body of water, natural or unnatural. Where should the tests be taken? On the surface? On the bottom? Somewhere in between? In addition to which, pH isn't an accurate test for CO₂ levels. Human stomach acid pH is between 1.5 and 3.5, but it's due to hydrochloric acid (HCl), which is a strong acid, not due to excessive amounts of CO₂ (carbonic acid is a weak acid, which actually makes it act as a base when it comes into contact with HCl).

7. Strongly suggests that nations replace fossil fuel burning power plants that lie upon open water with clean running hydroelectric plants to lessen by-products that must be disposed of.

Like was already mentioned, air pollution isn't limited to the water's edge. Either tackle air pollution as that's the source of CO₂ pollution and leave water contaminants out, or tackle water contamination and leave CO₂ out. You're trying to do both and you're succeeding in neither. Also, hydroelectric plants have tons of ecological issues, especially when it comes to fishing and aquaculture and all the things you were worried about at the start. They don't make shipping easier either.

8. Requires that nations create recycling programs if they do not already exist.

...and this has anything to do with anything because of why?

9. Requires that nations educate civilians on the dangers of low pH levels within open waters as well as provide education on reuse of waste and recycling programs.

Please, give me an example of the "dangers of low pH levels within open waters". Just one. Because that's something you haven't done in the whole proposal so far.

10. Strongly suggests that nations involve civilian environmental groups to assist in cleanup efforts.

Cleanup? Where the fuck did that come from? Cleanup of what? Seriously, this is the 4th or 5th random thing dumped into this proposal. Stop it.

11. Strongly suggests the use of low sulfur coal if coal use is required at all.

...what? I mean, I think this kind of tries to tie in with... uh, actually, none. So it's 5th or 6th random thing.

You need to decide on what issue you're trying to tackle, not drop on all kinds of random things on this, because currently it's illegal for a few reasons (one of which is probably strength, given how little it actually does that isn't already done), the title is misleading (that's probably its own illegality), the only definition has very-little-to-none to do with any of the clauses after it, and you're apparently delusional (thinking that air pollution doesn't travel from further inland to any body of water).

---

OOC: Kenmoria, I know you know better. Given all the help on punctuation and grammar and formatting that you've been giving on this thread, why did you never address all the actual issues with it? Your only post that isn't about punctuation/grammar/spelling/formatting defends messing it up. Seriously? You can do better than that.

[Alsace and Lorraine United]

OOC post: I live! (In any case anyone noticed I was gone...)

Took me a while to get caught up with all the reading, but finally managed to do that. This was on first page and looks like it's still being worked on, so I considered it legitimate prey to go after. If I was mistaken, then sorry.

*brandishes the Proposal Scalpel* Now let's see what this beastie had for its last meal!

Protection Against Open Water Acidification

The title currently seems a bit off, but I'll get back to that later.

Category: Environmental
Area of Effect: All Businesses
Strength: Strong

(Just as an aside: Finding out about the Mild/Strong additions for All Businesses made me squeak happily.)

Observing that it is important to protect and preserve the bodies of water shared by the nations of the world.

I would open with something else. Anything else. This is going to be the first thing that people read, and anyone who's even remotely on the side of "but muh businesses!" reading "protect" and "preserve" is going to have a kneejerk reaction for "against". If you want to start from this, I wouldn't use "bodies of water", I'd use the actual words, like, you know, oceans, lakes, rivers... Remember that the preamble is the part of the proposal where you're fishing for sympathy and trying to explain why there is an international problem that your proposal is needed to fix.

Believing that the deterioration of international waters would cause industries such as fishing, waterborne shipping, arctic tourism, as well as aquaculture would be crippled, along with the systems that maintain the hospitable nature of international waters such as corals and seaweeds.

I'd drop "waterborne shipping" from the list, especially considering how it is a part of the reasons for water pollution, and certainly makes life more difficult for aquatic animal life. Also, what is "arctic tourism" (*asks someone who lives just north of the 62nd parallel north*) and why is it, out of all kinds of ecotourisms singled out? I'd just use "ecotourism". Or even more likely I'd use "industries such as ecologically sustainable fishing, aquaculture and tourism" as the points of argument instead, and move the worry for corals and seaweeds (but not non-coral animal life? why not?) to its own preamble clause.

Basically, separate industries (fishing, aquaculture, tourism) and ecosystem impacts (wanting to protect things living in the water) into their own preamble clauses.

Deeply Concerned that the acidification of national waters, such as lakes and rivers, would similarly cripple fishing and tourism to the surrounding nations as their waters become less and less hospitable.

You literally just said this. No need to repeat it.

Noting that nations often utilize national waters for the main source of water due to civilian populations' sustenance as well as certain industries, creating a health risk for contaminated water.

What, in this context, are "national waters"? Because in my mind at least that means "area inside the sea border", and I'm having a hard time connecting that with "main source of water". Are you trying to tackle saline or fresh water issues? Because if both, I'm going to make you read a limnology (study of inland waters, includes both salty and fresh) text book first... Also, "contaminated water" isn't really same as "water with more CO₂". Carbon dioxide is an atmospheric pollutant, not a water contaminant.

So are you going for water pollution prevention or water acidification prevention? Because the two aren't the same issue.

Alarmed by the ever decreasing pH level of international and national waters alike; the result being more and more acidic waters.

Lowering pH makes things more acidic. Also, water is wet. Basically give some reasons why higher acidity is a bad thing in water rather than just saying it's bad for industries and life forms. You don't have to give a comprehensive list, 2-3 examples will be fine.

1. Defines "contamination" for the purpose of this resolution as the act of raising CO2 content or lowering the pH level of water to unnatural standards through means of pollution or chemical additives.

Adding more CO₂ (and please, for the love of all that's good and holy, use the sub code for the 2) lowers the pH level due to H₂O + CO₂ = H₂CO₃ (carbonic acid). However, what is "unnatural standard"? Carbonated drinks have "unnatural" amounts of CO₂, though some natural waters may have much more (in volcanically active regions, for instance). What annoys me here is that you're only talking about CO₂ in this definition, but are all over the place with all the rest of the clauses.

Most of CO₂ dissolving into water doesn't actually undergo the carbonic acid conversion and instead remains as dissolved gas, just like how water also has dissolved nitrogen and oxygen (and argon too, which is the 3rd most common gas in RL atmosphere, about 23 times as abundant as CO₂ - argon has about same solubility in water as oxygen).

2. Entrusts the IBWS to:

What is IBWS? If you're creating a committee, you need to actually create it before using it. If you're using an existing committee, use its full name first, abbreviation later.

a. Keep Records regarding pH levels of both International and National Waters,

Why Are you Randomly capitalizing Some of the Words? Also, wouldn't the pH levels need to be measured first?

b. Study the effects of dropping pH levels on water dwelling aquatic lifeforms,

Change. Also, shouldn't this be something that the nations would be doing? Same as measuring the pH levels. They could send the results to the committee.

c. Make the findings of the aforementioned records known and accessible to the citizens of the nations under scrutiny.

Or just make the nations do the research and make the results known to their citizens and send a copy to the committee. As would be the saner option.

3. Forbids the act of dumping materials or by-products of which would result in a considerable deterioration of international water quality except in the cases of:

...please describe to me a situation where dumping something into a body of water bigger than a pond seriously lowers the pH via adding tons of CO₂? Or are we talking about water pollution again, with actual contaminants, rather than what you set out to do (CO₂ increase leading to acidification)?

a. Objects jettisoned from aircraft or watercraft in the interest of the life of the crew in emergency situations,

...but an aircraft/watercraft throwing up tons and tons of CO₂ into the atmosphere as part of its normal functioning is okay? Or is not okay? I'm a bit confused now.

b. Objects too toxic or dangerous to be held upon solid land such as highly radioactive materials, chemical weapons, or explosive materials,

None of those should be dumped (as in released and abandoned) in any body of water! Nor do they have anything to do with seriously raising CO₂ levels in water as far as I know.

You know Cherenkov radiation? Nuclear materials in water glowing a blue light? That comes from a charged particle (usually an electron) moving through the water faster than the speed of light in water. Speed of light is the absolute top speed only in a vacuum. Its speed can be broken elsewhere. The glow comes from a shockwave effect that's similar to sonic booms (objects moving faster than speed of sound).

c. Objects such as these must be secured and confined within containers to minimize the risk of leakage or Compromisation.

The Random capitalization of Words strikes again. And also, if something is stored appropriately, there's no reason to dump it in any body of water!

4. Requires that member nations refrain from contaminating waters used as drinking sources for nations unless completely necessary to retain national security and structure.

Check the Clean Water Act. This is both duplication (contamination ban) and contradiction (allowing it in some cases).

5. Forbids waste disposal into open waters in any form unless an environmental impact report can be reviewed and approved by all relavent nations, as well as IBWS.

And you're still all over the place. Why are you talking about waste disposal now? I thought your aim was water acidification prevention. Also, if a kid pees in a river that happens to be the border between two nations, why must it become an international issue? Think of the poor child!

Yes, I am mocking an otherwise fairly sensible clause, because it has nothing to do with the stated aim of the proposal.

6. Requires electronic CO2 sensors to be installed in civilian water storage facilities to monitor the levels for CO2 as well as the facilities to conduct regular pH tests of water no less than once per week.

...facilities? They aren't "open water". If you're talking about a reservoir, that's not a facility. It's an artificial lake. And yes there's a difference. Also, CO₂ levels are not equal everywhere in any body of water, natural or unnatural. Where should the tests be taken? On the surface? On the bottom? Somewhere in between? In addition to which, pH isn't an accurate test for CO₂ levels. Human stomach acid pH is between 1.5 and 3.5, but it's due to hydrochloric acid (HCl), which is a strong acid, not due to excessive amounts of CO₂ (carbonic acid is a weak acid, which actually makes it act as a base when it comes into contact with HCl).

7. Strongly suggests that nations replace fossil fuel burning power plants that lie upon open water with clean running hydroelectric plants to lessen by-products that must be disposed of.

Like was already mentioned, air pollution isn't limited to the water's edge. Either tackle air pollution as that's the source of CO₂ pollution and leave water contaminants out, or tackle water contamination and leave CO₂ out. You're trying to do both and you're succeeding in neither. Also, hydroelectric plants have tons of ecological issues, especially when it comes to fishing and aquaculture and all the things you were worried about at the start. They don't make shipping easier either.

8. Requires that nations create recycling programs if they do not already exist.

...and this has anything to do with anything because of why?

9. Requires that nations educate civilians on the dangers of low pH levels within open waters as well as provide education on reuse of waste and recycling programs.

Please, give me an example of the "dangers of low pH levels within open waters". Just one. Because that's something you haven't done in the whole proposal so far.

10. Strongly suggests that nations involve civilian environmental groups to assist in cleanup efforts.

Cleanup? Where the fuck did that come from? Cleanup of what? Seriously, this is the 4th or 5th random thing dumped into this proposal. Stop it.

11. Strongly suggests the use of low sulfur coal if coal use is required at all.

...what? I mean, I think this kind of tries to tie in with... uh, actually, none. So it's 5th or 6th random thing.

You need to decide on what issue you're trying to tackle, not drop on all kinds of random things on this, because currently it's illegal for a few reasons (one of which is probably strength, given how little it actually does that isn't already done), the title is misleading (that's probably its own illegality), the only definition has very-little-to-none to do with any of the clauses after it, and you're apparently delusional (thinking that air pollution doesn't travel from further inland to any body of water).

---

OOC: Kenmoria, I know you know better. Given all the help on punctuation and grammar and formatting that you've been giving on this thread, why did you never address all the actual issues with it? Your only post that isn't about punctuation/grammar/spelling/formatting defends messing it up. Seriously? You can do better than that.

You did indeed feast on my proposal didn't you, welcome back by the way, and thank you for all your comments edits will be made and your comments will be taken into mind