[DRAFT] Oceanic Hazardous Waste Disposal Ban

[Grays Harbor]

In most WA nations, Capitalism is the norm, which means that companies go generally unrestricted in their waste disposal. Thus, everyone suffers as a result.

It is all “capitalism” fault then? Sounds like a severe case of tunnel vision.

OOC: Some of the worst industrial pollution in history came from USSR and PRC, hardly diehard capitalists

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

In most WA nations, Capitalism is the norm, which means that companies go generally unrestricted in their waste disposal. Thus, everyone suffers as a result.

It is all “capitalism” fault then? Sounds like a severe case of tunnel vision.

OOC: Some of the worst industrial pollution in history came from USSR and PRC, hardly diehard capitalists

I am capitalist -_-

The point of my example was even if a government is dedicated to these policies in a Capitalist system some companies may not be. I didn't say countries that are communist couldn't pollute awfully

Any feedback on the proposal?

This isn't low effort. This has gone through 4 drafts, and 1.5 months of work.

I pulled it from quorum when people said it wasn't ready three weeks ago. Please do your research before you declare something you do not like low-effort. I have put a lot of time and effort into it.

EDIT: I specify intentional nuclear fission because carbon decay in wood is technically nuclear fission. We don't want to ban wood dumping, do we? Please read the thread before commenting.

EDIT2: Quote Ararau "this includes all naturally-occurring radioactive materials, which are present in everything organic (carbon dating is based on radioactive carbon found in all living things)"

Alright a few things. 1.5 months of drafting isn't shit, majority of proposals go on many months, some even years. Also going through 20+ is fairly normal. Next, why not then specify naturally occurring instead of intentional, as intentional seems like awkward wording to me. And yes... I read your thread but decided to question you on it since I wasn't happy with your answers.

Next, your use of sewage doesn't seem to be needed, why not just include it in a toxic waste definition instead of adding it as it's own clause for no apparent reason. And also the 'Hoping' clause should either be moved to the preamble or stricken.

Please don't. I already said sorry multiple times over telegram and don't want to have t o be stressed over creating enemies in NationStates. I am sorry, okay?

1.5 months is significant. Especially with consistent updating. Just because some more complex proposals take longer, doesn't mean shorter-drafting ones are bad. I agree that it isn't yet ready, and am not contesting that. Why are you telling me I haven't put work into a proposal I have? Both of us agree it isn't ready, so lets make it better

Alrighty, rewriting with your suggestions in mind!

EDIT: Alright! What do you think?! (I didn't move the Hoping clause to the preamble as it is looking to future resolutions rather than addressing the current one) Any more feedback? (thanks for the current tidbit )

[Grays Harbor]

Any feedback on the proposal?

OOC: No, not really. Any potential issues I’ve had were addressed by others first, and I think you’ve done a pretty decent job of not getting in a rush, listening to advise, and acting on that advise; all without letting it devolve into thinking it was a “personal attack”. Overall, you have done a creditable job of this.

Edit: Also, there is no actual time limit. I have seen some damn fine proposals crafted in a very few weeks, and others which have taken a year or more and are still crap. Some folks insist on a couple months or more, but that is mostly to allow everybody, as folks are all on different schedules and time zones, an opportunity to comment and hammer something into a useable proposal.

[Giant Bats]

Kistiri, filling in for Ikiti as the debate-goer, was very hard trying to understand the concept of an ocean, an ecosystem not unlike his world, with a foodchain starting from photosynthetic plankton and ending in obligate carnivores not unlike his species, except underwater. If the other debaters hadn't appeared to be so very serious about it, he would have thought the concept translator was playing a trick on him.

"I notice that the proposal bans intentionally allowing pollution to enter the ocean, but is that only about directly spreading polluting things in an ocean, instead of an estuary, or just upstream of whatever line you draw on a river and an ocean?"

- Kistiri Tikilikrr, Assistant to the Head of Diplomatic Wing

[Kranostav]

Question, why just oceans? What about subsidiaries or other rivers?

[Araraukar]

Question, why just oceans? What about subsidiaries or other rivers?

OOC: There's a fresh water one out there already (unless it got repealed when I wasn't looking). EDIT: And other ones about fresh water in general. There are other ones about oceans too, just not this particular issue.

[Kranostav]

Question, why just oceans? What about subsidiaries or other rivers?

OOC: There's a fresh water one out there already (unless it got repealed when I wasn't looking). EDIT: And other ones about fresh water in general. There are other ones about oceans too, just not this particular issue.

Would the fresh water one cover brackish subsidiaries and ocean feeders?

[Kenmoria]

“1iv is a clause with which I have an issue. Just because water is uncleaned, does not necessarily mean it is unclean. What I mean by this is that water is a very common byproduct of chemical reactions and when made in this way has less impurities than sea water, so has no need to be cleaned.”

[Araraukar]

Would the fresh water one cover brackish subsidiaries and ocean feeders?

OOC: Depends on your definition on brackish. The Baltic Sea is brackish water and in the Gulf of Bothnia (where most of Finland's coastline is) it's fresh enough that you won't die from drinking only the seawater, but it's still not fresh water the way it's normally defined, because it's part of the world ocean. It just happens to be a very low-salt part of it.

If "ocean feeders" means rivers that discharge their water into the ocean, then of course, why wouldn't they? In the estuary/delta there's usually a brackish water zone, but upstream from that, assuming normal world, it'd be freshwater and fall under the usual definitions of words.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

Would the fresh water one cover brackish subsidiaries and ocean feeders?

OOC: Depends on your definition on brackish. The Baltic Sea is brackish water and in the Gulf of Bothnia (where most of Finland's coastline is) it's fresh enough that you won't die from drinking only the seawater, but it's still not fresh water the way it's normally defined, because it's part of the world ocean. It just happens to be a very low-salt part of it.

If "ocean feeders" means rivers that discharge their water into the ocean, then of course, why wouldn't they? In the estuary/delta there's usually a brackish water zone, but upstream from that, assuming normal world, it'd be freshwater and fall under the usual definitions of words.

Question, why just oceans? What about subsidiaries or other rivers?

OOC: There's a fresh water one out there already (unless it got repealed when I wasn't looking). EDIT: And other ones about fresh water in general. There are other ones about oceans too, just not this particular issue.

So would it be advisable to include an ocean feeder definition clause and then add "Ocean Feeder" alongside ocean where you cannot dump the toxic waste? Or do the existing resolutions cover it?

[Kranostav]

From what I see, only GAR#7 and GAR#453 directly deal with this issue. And neither explicitly mention subsidiaries or other ocean feeders.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

From what I see, only GAR#7 and GAR#453 directly deal with this issue. And neither explicitly mention subsidiaries or other ocean feeders.

Thanks for the resolution numbers. I went and read them. It appears I have my work cut out for me. GAR #453 barely misses covering any rivers, and thus a clause does turn out to be necessary. I will put it together in the morning (12 hours from now).

[Kranostav]

From what I see, only GAR#7 and GAR#453 directly deal with this issue. And neither explicitly mention subsidiaries or other ocean feeders.

Thanks for the resolution numbers. I went and read them. It appears I have my work cut out for me. GAR #453 barely misses covering any rivers, and thus a clause does turn out to be necessary. I will put it together in the morning (12 hours from now).

You might want to glance over this (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30) just incase I missed anything! Looking forward to seeing what you can do.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

Okay! The next draft is up! This time including Ocean Tributaries!

Thanks for the resolution numbers. I went and read them. It appears I have my work cut out for me. GAR #453 barely misses covering any rivers, and thus a clause does turn out to be necessary. I will put it together in the morning (12 hours from now).

You might want to glance over this (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30) just incase I missed anything! Looking forward to seeing what you can do.

Took a look, thanks for all the support!

[Kenmoria]

“In clause 3, it should be ‘oceans’ rather than ‘the ocean’, as there are multiple oceans, when one counts the many planets making up the World Assembly.”

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

“In clause 3, it should be ‘oceans’ rather than ‘the ocean’, as there are multiple oceans, when one counts the many planets making up the World Assembly.”

Fixed! I am wondering if this is submit ready yet.

Any feedback left on it, or is it set to go? (I am putting it up in the WA Discord and letting them gauge it before making a call)

[Ransium]

This is not ready to submit. The title is awful. 'Ocean Protection' is a broad-ranging and nebulous concept. This title could fit for any number of topics such as fishing, noise reduction, preventing acidification, coral reef protection, etc. Make the title actually describe what this does and please loose the "Act" entirely. I would prefer if all clauses before the "Hereby" were punctuated with commas and after punctuated with semicolons. The writing is unnecessarily wordy. Take out fluff words like "Decidedly" in 1-i) they make the proposal harder to read and don't make you sound more 'professional'. Take out any unnecessary capitalizations such as "Oceans" in 3.

"Hoping to see further legislation regarding the marine environment in regards to plastic disposal,"

This is pretty out of the blue. There are tons of litter that goes into the ocean. Although plastic is certainly a pernicious one it certainly not the only thing in the link between plastic and toxic waste is tenuous.

Establishes the above, implementing the Oceans Protection Act.

This is not needed.

---

Here's a quick re-write underlined words indicate changes other than deletion which is indicated by strike-through, I still don't like a lot of how this written but at least it communicated the ideas you are trying to in an efficent manner now:

Title: Ban on Dumping Toxic Waste into Oceans

Category: Environmental - Manufacturing(?)

The General Assembly,

Lauding previously passed World Assembly resolutions regulating waste, litter, and other pollutants,

Understanding the crucial role oceans play in global ecological and economic stability, demonstrated by industries such as fishing, marine aquaculture, shipping, and recreation, as well as providing countless ecosystem services such as providing habitat for oxygen-producing organisms,

Noting the dumping of toxic wastes into oceans have catostrophic impacts on all of the above industries and organisms (Note: I really encourage you to add some arugment about how these wastes spread across international boundaries).

Distressed that many World Assembly member nations are already experiencing the consequences of damaging ocean waste dumping,

Hereby;

Defines 'toxic waste' as:

1. Radioactive substances create as a by-product product of indusutry;
   
2. Industrially produced carcinogens or waste known to be of a densely concentrated carcinogenic nature;
   
3. Waste deemed to be chemically hazardous, either due to acidity, flammability, or chemical reactivity,
   
4. Untreated sewage;

(I still don't like this list I would describe what the things you don't want dumped do as I tried to do in 3).

Defines an 'Ocean Tributary', for the purpose of this resolution, as a body of water which directly drains into the ocean, (This is a well defined, commonly understood word)

Prohibits the intentional disposal and discharge of suchtoxic waste in any way shape or form into the oceans or ocean tributaries; (You might want to think about treatment, after all your untreated sewage implies that with treatment toxic waste may be dumped into oceans maybe spend time thinking specifying treatment.)

Encourages member nations to find more efficient and environmentally friendly ways of disposing of such waste, (Dumping in the ocean is pretty damn efficient!)

Hoping to see further legislation preventing pollution and contamination of the marine environment; in regards to plastic disposal,

Establishes the above, implementing the Oceans Protection Act.

---

I'm still not entirely sold on the premise of this resolution being needed 371 says:

1. Defines "toxic heavy metals" as any relatively dense metal or metalloid, or any compound thereof, that is noted for its potential toxicity by the World Assembly Scientific Programme;

(which BTW, is honestly a way better definition of toxic waste than what you have) and

5. Prohibits the intentional discharge of toxic heavy metals into the natural environment, including bodies of water;

I think all items except raw sewage are probably already covered by 371.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

Establishes the above, implementing the Oceans Protection Act.

This is not needed.

Removed!

Here's a quick re-write underlined words indicate changes other than deletion which is indicated by strike-through, I still don't like a lot of how this written but at least it communicated the ideas you are trying to in an efficient manner now:

Title: Ban on Dumping Toxic Waste into Oceans

That title has been adopted (albeit not exactly like that)

Category: Environmental - Manufacturing(?)

That category seems right.

The General Assembly,

Lauding previously passed World Assembly rresolutions regulating waste, litter, and other pollutants,

Understanding the crucial role oceans play in global ecological and economic stability, demonstrated by industries such as fishing, marine aquaculture, shipping, and recreation, as well as providing countless ecosystem services such as providing habitat for oxygen-producing organisms,

Noting the dumping of toxic wastes into oceans have catostrophic impacts on all of the above industries and organisms (Note: I really encourage you to add some argument about how these wastes spread across international boundaries).

I will soon. I can't think of a good way to phrase it right now.

Distressed that many World Assembly member nations are already experiencing the consequences of damaging ocean waste dumping,

Hereby;

Defines 'toxic waste' as:

1. Radioactive substances create as a by-product product of indusutry;
   
2. Industrially produced carcinogens or waste known to be of a densely concentrated carcinogenic nature;
   
3. Waste deemed to be chemically hazardous, either due to acidity, flammability, or chemical reactivity,
   
4. Untreated sewage;

(I still don't like this list I would describe what the things you don't want dumped do as I tried to do in 3).

Defines an 'Ocean Tributary', for the purpose of this resolution, as a body of water which directly drains into the ocean, (This is a well defined, commonly understood word)

Prohibits the intentional disposal and discharge of suchtoxic waste in any way shape or form into the oceans or ocean tributaries; (You might want to think about treatment, after all your untreated sewage implies that with treatment toxic waste may be dumped into oceans maybe spend time thinking specifying treatment.)

Encourages member nations to find more efficient and environmentally friendly ways of disposing of such waste, (Dumping in the ocean is pretty damn efficient!)

Hoping to see further legislation preventing pollution and contamination of the marine environment; in regards to plastic disposal,

Establishes the above, implementing the Oceans Protection Act.

[/quote]

All fixed up according to your suggestions!

---

I'm still not entirely sold on the premise of this resolution being needed 371 says:

1. Defines "toxic heavy metals" as any relatively dense metal or metalloid, or any compound thereof, that is noted for its potential toxicity by the World Assembly Scientific Programme;

(which BTW, is honestly a way better definition of toxic waste than what you have) and

5. Prohibits the intentional discharge of toxic heavy metals into the natural environment, including bodies of water;

I think all items except raw sewage are probably already covered by 371.

[/quote]

I think that resolution only covers toxic heavy metal compounds, meaning this proposal with the new definitions, it bans the dumping of, in addition to heavy metals:

• Chemical Acids
• Halogen Based Waste
• Raw Sewage
• Tar and Coal
• Alcohol (I mean, how hard can it be not to dump extra alcohol into rivers?)
• Most shampoos, shower oils, and other bath products.
• Many fever reducing medicines
• Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (Highly carcinogenic non-metals that have use in electronics)
• Certain Carcinogenic Carboxides

And that is just naming a few.

Thank you so, so much! Do you want coauthor?

[Kenmoria]

“The last clause of any proposal should end with a full stop, not a semicolon.”

[Kalata]

OOC: Due to the author's cooperation with Confederation of Corrupt Dictators in certain military operations, we will not support any proposal put forth by this author.

[Wrapper]

OOC: Half the chemicals you have listed there are not toxic.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

OOC: Due to the author's cooperation with Confederation of Corrupt Dictators in certain military operations, we will not support any proposal put forth by this author.

You misinterpret my cooperation. They wished to liberate a certain region, and asked the SAAFs help for it. I told them that the only contact SAAF would have with them was to defend the region from TBH, and when they failed to do so with our help, we cut off cooperation.

Let me put it simply: Sonindia is a defender region. I was approached by CCD and asked to help them liberate a certain region from TBH and return it to the natives. They said they wanted to change and improve their international reputation. As someone who believes in redemption and grace I agreed, and when they failed to deliver, I cut off contact.

OOC: Half the chemicals you have listed there are not toxic.

Could you point out which ones? I will remove them.

[Kenmoria]

Could you point out which ones? I will remove them.

(OOC: The ones in iii are not toxic, since they are instead flammable, acidic or reactive. I think you meant ‘hazardous waste’ rather than ‘toxic waste’, since the latter has a much more precise definition that excludes a lot of things obviously damaging to health.)

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: Due to the author's cooperation with Confederation of Corrupt Dictators in certain military operations, we will not support any proposal put forth by this author.

OOC: This is a ridiculous reason to reject a proposal

[Hatzisland]

OOC: Due to the author's cooperation with Confederation of Corrupt Dictators in certain military operations, we will not support any proposal put forth by this author.

OOC: This is a ridiculous reason to reject a proposal

OOC: Not really. People in diplomacy oppose proposals set forth by their enemies, even if the proposal would have been supported if proposed by an ally. That's just how it works.