[PASSED] Repeal "Promotion of Recycling"

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...as a result mandates that member nations implement collection systems to recycle all recyclable materials;

I would change this to:

...as a result mandates that member nations implement separate systems to collect all refuse containing even a small portion of recyclable material;

Further notes later.

[Honeydewistania]

Ok, on it

[Araraukar]

OOC post. I HAVE NOT YET GONE TO BED SO IT MUST STILL BE EVENING EVEN THOUGH THE SUN CAME UP.

Concerned that despite defining ‘recyclable waste material’ in Clause 1(a), the term is not used in Clause 2(b), which as a result mandates that member nations implement separate systems to collect all refuse containing even a small portion of recyclable material;

This is... off. Untrue. One of them wordy words. I AM PERFECTLY AWAKE WHATEVER GAVE YOU A DIFFERENT IDEA?

2.b. "Mandates the implementation of ... system for the collection of ... materials" does not equal "mandates the collection of materials". It just mandates you need to put recycling bins somewhere that people can get to without walking through a minefield, and that the recyclables are then also collected from the bins.

Further concerned that this mandate is infeasible and incredibly costly, as it arguably requires the collection of goods that are:

1. a serious environmental, occupational or processing hazard;
2. extremely difficult or expensive to salvage or recycle; or
3. of incredibly low use in a member nation's economy;

Given it doesn't actually mandate the collection of the materials nor the recycling of the collected materials, these are also one of them wordy words. I AM AWAKE. BRAIN, TAKE NOTE. And if something is a serious environmental hazard, shouldn't it actually BE something that you should want to collect so it doesn't get thrown in a ditch somewhere? As for occupational or whatever hazard, unless you're trying to argue the target is in violation with the workplace safety resolution thingy, the target's obviously going to expect that nations are already in compliance with that while doing any of its requirements.

Irritated by the resolution's apparent insistence on domestic handling of all materials, without any allowance made for possible trade or transshipment of recyclable waste products to reduce costs among all member states;

Where does it say that? Not even talking of my sleepy brain here, but literally, where? It has "in all member nations" and then "in said nations", which seems to refer to "all member nations". I don't see anything about not being allowed to move it across borders? THIS LOOKS LIKE A WORDY WORD TOO. Shush, you.

Saddened by the resolution’s lack of insistence on full upgrade and update measures for nations claiming to have recycling programs already in place, allowing pre-existing substandard recycling programs to pass without penalty; and

NOT REQUIRING WORK TO BE DONE TWICE FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER IS NOT SADDENING. I agree with the sleepy brain here. And how do you get "substandard allowed" from "Mandates the introduction of recycling ... as a means of waster reduction ... in accordance to their technological and economical capabilities"? If you mean that a nation wouldn't have the tech or the financing to get any better at recycling, it still wouldn't have the financing or tech to get better at recycling even if the WA required it to do so. WOULD AUTHOR WANT THEIR NATION TO PAY FOR THE RECYCLING SYSTEM AND ITS UPKEEP COSTS FOR NATIONS WITH SUBPAR SYSTEMS IF NOT THEN WHY NOT? What the brain said.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC post. I HAVE NOT YET GONE TO BED SO IT MUST STILL BE EVENING EVEN THOUGH THE SUN CAME UP.

Concerned that despite defining ‘recyclable waste material’ in Clause 1(a), the term is not used in Clause 2(b), which as a result mandates that member nations implement separate systems to collect all refuse containing even a small portion of recyclable material;

This is... off. Untrue. One of them wordy words. I AM PERFECTLY AWAKE WHATEVER GAVE YOU A DIFFERENT IDEA?

2.b. "Mandates the implementation of ... system for the collection of ... materials" does not equal "mandates the collection of materials". It just mandates you need to put recycling bins somewhere that people can get to without walking through a minefield, and that the recyclables are then also collected from the bins.

I believe the repeal's language is a colorable interpretation. Obviously if challenged, I would recuse myself from judgment on it, but I don't see a problem.

Further concerned that this mandate is infeasible and incredibly costly, as it arguably requires the collection of goods that are:

1. a serious environmental, occupational or processing hazard;
2. extremely difficult or expensive to salvage or recycle; or
3. of incredibly low use in a member nation's economy;

Given it doesn't actually mandate the collection of the materials nor the recycling of the collected materials, these are also one of them wordy words. I AM AWAKE. BRAIN, TAKE NOTE. And if something is a serious environmental hazard, shouldn't it actually BE something that you should want to collect so it doesn't get thrown in a ditch somewhere? As for occupational or whatever hazard, unless you're trying to argue the target is in violation with the workplace safety resolution thingy, the target's obviously going to expect that nations are already in compliance with that while doing any of its requirements.

I dispute the part in red, but if it were true, then that's simply another good reason to repeal the target, yes? The point is that the target doesn't fully account for all of what it's requiring nations to do.

Irritated by the resolution's apparent insistence on domestic handling of all materials, without any allowance made for possible trade or transshipment of recyclable waste products to reduce costs among all member states;

Where does it say that? Not even talking of my sleepy brain here, but literally, where? It has "in all member nations" and then "in said nations", which seems to refer to "all member nations". I don't see anything about not being allowed to move it across borders? THIS LOOKS LIKE A WORDY WORD TOO. Shush, you.

In Clause 2(a) - "2. Mandates: a) the introduction of recycling and salvaging as a means of waste reduction in all member nations in accordance to their technological and economical capabilities, unless such is already introduced and active;"

...so if transshipment were permitted, it would say so. Because "recycling and salvaging [must be] a means of waste reduction in all member nations," therefore all member nations must have fully self-sufficient recycling operations, and so there is no international trade of recyclable materials permitted because the resolution has mandated (at unnecessarily great cost) that there be no need for it.

Saddened by the resolution’s lack of insistence on full upgrade and update measures for nations claiming to have recycling programs already in place, allowing pre-existing substandard recycling programs to pass without penalty; and

NOT REQUIRING WORK TO BE DONE TWICE FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER IS NOT SADDENING. I agree with the sleepy brain here. And how do you get "substandard allowed" from "Mandates the introduction of recycling ... as a means of waster reduction ... in accordance to their technological and economical capabilities"? If you mean that a nation wouldn't have the tech or the financing to get any better at recycling, it still wouldn't have the financing or tech to get better at recycling even if the WA required it to do so. WOULD AUTHOR WANT THEIR NATION TO PAY FOR THE RECYCLING SYSTEM AND ITS UPKEEP COSTS FOR NATIONS WITH SUBPAR SYSTEMS IF NOT THEN WHY NOT? What the brain said.

Under the target resolution, if a nation introduced a recycling program thirty years ago, that program is clearly "introduced and active." But chances are it's obsolete by now, and could be made more efficient. The target is at best ambiguous as to whether a member nation would be required to actually make the upgrades necessary to bring it in line with "their technological and economical capabilities." If an obsolete (but once state of the art) program is "introduced and active," there is no explicit requirement to upgrade it, only to keep it no less capable than it currently is, because "that's what we can afford right now." An upgrade provision for existing but older programs would have improved the target resolution.

[Honeydewistania]

Hopefully gonna submit this soon

[Araraukar]

In Clause 2(a) - "2. Mandates: a) the introduction of recycling and salvaging as a means of waste reduction in all member nations in accordance to their technological and economical capabilities, unless such is already introduced and active;"

...so if transshipment were permitted, it would say so. Because "recycling and salvaging [must be] a means of waste reduction in all member nations," therefore all member nations must have fully self-sufficient recycling operations, and so there is no international trade of recyclable materials permitted because the resolution has mandated (at unnecessarily great cost) that there be no need for it.

OOC: Since when has it worked so that if a resolution doesn't say anything about X, then X must be forbidden?

[Honeydewistania]

Submitting soon

[Sierra Lyricalia]

In Clause 2(a) - "2. Mandates: a) the introduction of recycling and salvaging as a means of waste reduction in all member nations in accordance to their technological and economical capabilities, unless such is already introduced and active;"

...so if transshipment were permitted, it would say so. Because "recycling and salvaging [must be] a means of waste reduction in all member nations," therefore all member nations must have fully self-sufficient recycling operations, and so there is no international trade of recyclable materials permitted because the resolution has mandated (at unnecessarily great cost) that there be no need for it.

OOC: Since when has it worked so that if a resolution doesn't say anything about X, then X must be forbidden?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the resolution requires nations to have full recycling programs such that no transborder trade of recycled goods is necessary. By cutting demand to zero by fiat, the resolution effectively prohibits transshipment of recyclable materials. It's not that transshipment is prohibited per se, it's that the mandated condition is one in which none is needed, even though a less stringent condition that allowed for transshipment instead of full recycling self-sufficiency would be cheaper for member states in the aggregate. The condition whereby states would want to send recyclable waste abroad is what has been outlawed.

It's like if you decided to destroy the international drug trade by mandating that all member states grow their own opium poppy crops and distribute the heroin free. That's not a super great analogy because the demand for heroin might still outpace domestic production, but the hypothetical resolution would then mandate that nations ramp up poppy production to sate all possible demand. That is what has been done here.

[Morover]

This is now at vote.

[Heavens Reach]

Easy vote of FOR in the matter of Repeal "Promotion of Recycing".

[Kenmoria]

“This is a clear vote for this proposal for me.”

[Calvinium]

I think that the legislation wasn't the most effective it could've been, but I think it's very, very difficult to make a perfect recycling bill, I think it works enough to stay how it is, and I am interested in your idea or ideas for a more effective recycling bill.

[Honeydewistania]

I think that the legislation wasn't the most effective it could've been, but I think it's very, very difficult to make a perfect recycling bill, I think it works enough to stay how it is, and I am interested in your idea or ideas for a more effective recycling bill.

It's in the original post, I linked to my ideas

[Newenken]

“I think you wanted ‘bizarre’ rather than ‘blizzard’ in the ‘irritated’ clause.”

Done.


Also, this is up.

“The Federal Republic of Newenken supports the draft resolution that would replace #GA 483.

That is why we will vote in favor of this proposal, hoping that the new project will be presented, debated and approved as soon as possible“.

Guybrush Threepwood.
Ambassador to the General Assembly and the Security Council.

[Chairman Cities]

The Proposal To Repeal Is Already Set To Pass

[Tinhampton]

Repeal "Promotion of Recycling" was passed 12,971 votes to 2,495.

[Willingdon and Jevington]

Repeal "Promotion of Recycling" was passed 12,971 votes to 2,495.

Can’t believe the target even passed in the first place.

[Heavens Reach]

Done.


Also, this is up.

“The Federal Republic of Newenken supports the draft resolution that would replace #GA 483.

That is why we will vote in favor of this proposal, hoping that the new project will be presented, debated and approved as soon as possible“.

Guybrush Threepwood.
Ambassador to the General Assembly and the Security Council.

We will also be supporting the replacement legislation.