[PASSED] Ensuring Effectual Recycling (ft. Kenmoria)

[Maowi]

OOC: I left some feedback/suggestions below:

Recycling Promotion Act
Proposed by: Honeydewistania

Category: Environmental

Area of Effect: All Businesses - Mild

---

The General Assembly,

Acknowledging the large volume of waste produced by member nations as a result of rabid economic growth; do you mean "rapid" economic growth?

Recognising that this waste could cause serious damage to the health of animals and ecosystems;

Convinced that promoting and encouraging recycling could reduce waste and prevent it from contaminating ecosystems;

Believing it is the duty of the World Assembly to promote such practices in order to protect the health of all beings and the ecosystems they inhabit;

Hereby:

1. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution:
(a) "recyclable waste product" as waste that can be safely reprocessed and repurposed into a material that can be reused for manufacturingpurposes;
(b) "salvageable waste product" as waste that can be dismantled into a form of recyclable waste product; I don't see the difference between this and a "recyclable waste product" (I'll use RWP). This is anything that can be turned into an RWP; an RWP is anything that can be turned into something useful in manufacturing. By that definition, a salvageable waste product is just an RWP. I think you can cut this from the proposal entirely.
(c) "recycling centre" as a structure where recyclable waste products and salvageable waste products are processed into reusable products suitable for repurposing;

2. Compels member nations to create and pay for, if none already existent in their jurisdiction, ensure the availability of easily accessible, safe, and usable recycling centres for use by their businesses and inhabitants;

3. Mandates recycling centres, pre-existing or otherwise, to be regularly upgraded and updated with the best possible improvements given the finances that might reasonably be allocated;

4. Authorises the use of the World Assembly General Fund, by member states, in order to ensure effective and reasonably-affordable compliance with clauses 2 and 3;

5. Requires member nations to create initiatives, through penalisation or incentives, to:
(a) raise awareness of recycling as a waste reduction method;
(b) encourage inhabitants and businesses to use recycling centres to recycle recyclable waste products or salvage salvageable waste products;
(c) promote the usage or purchase of items made from recycled materials;

6. Mandates that member nations implement these initiatives and create a with practical benefits for inhabitants engaging in them by doing so;

7. Encourages member nations to create even more easily accessible collection systems for recyclable waste products and salvageable waste products, such as door side recycling or properly marked recycling bins;

8. Permits member nations to incinerate or landfill certain types of waste when the technology or infrastructure does not exist to process the waste efficiently in an environmentally friendly way;

9. Recommends that member nations, in their bureaucracies and public projects, use materials made from reused products to the greatest extent reasonably possible;

10. Tasks the World Assembly Science Program and member nations with collating and conducting available research to create or delegate the creation of more efficient or safer waste reduction or recycling methods;

11. Encourages member nations to work together or utilise the work of persons in their jurisdictions to conduct and collate the above research; and

12. Requires member nations to pursue alternative courses of action regarding waste reduction or recycling if following any of the above mandates results in a negative impact to the environment. I think this is too broad; if in a certain instance recycling some waste by the above procedures would cause any negative impact to the environment, but is still the least damaging way of disposing of the waste, you're prohibiting it anyway. That probably applies to a lot of cases.

Co-authored by Kenmoria

[Kenmoria]

12. Requires member nations to pursue alternative courses of action regarding waste reduction or recycling if following any of the above mandates results in a negative impact to the environment. I think this is too broad; if in a certain instance recycling some waste by the above procedures would cause any negative impact to the environment, but is still the least damaging way of disposing of the waste, you're prohibiting it anyway. That probably applies to a lot of cases.

(OOC: How about: ‘12. Requires member nations to pursue alternative courses of action regarding waste reduction and recycling if following any of the above mandates would result in a worse net outcome for the environment than not following them.’)

[Maowi]

(OOC: How about: ‘12. Requires member nations to pursue alternative courses of action regarding waste reduction and recycling if following any of the above mandates would result in a worse net outcome for the environment than not following them.’)

OOC: I think that's definitely an improvement but it would probably be better to specify that the alternative course selected should be an improvement of some sort - perhaps as follows - "12. Despite the above, requires member nations to pursue the least environmentally damaging viable alternative regarding waste reduction and recycling in cases where following any of the above mandates would result in a worse net outcome for the environment than not following them."

[Honeydewistania]

Edited accordingly

[Maowi]

OOC: Since you've removed the "salvageable waste product" definition, you'll need to go through and remove any mention of it throughout the proposal.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Use list tags

[Honeydewistania]

Done.

If there are no more concerns content wise, I’ll likely propose the repeal soon

[Araraukar]

OOC and IC as marked.

Recycling Promotion Act

IC: "There are some "promotions" but more requirements and regulations. "Recycling Requirements" or "Recycling Regulations" would likely be more apt."

Acknowledging the large volume of waste produced by member nations as a result of rapid economic growth;

OOC: I think you mean "in", not "by", because it's rarely the nations themselves that produce waste, but rather people, businesses and industries in them. And it doesn't have to be "rapid economic growth", because waste in large volume is in RL at least produced during times of economic depression as well. So maybe rethink the "as a result of" part?

Recognising that this waste could cause serious damage to the health of animals and ecosystems;

IC: "Surely you mean "non-compostable waste", because compostable items release nutrients into the ecosystems and are thus usually good for the animals and other organisms."

Convinced that promoting and encouraging recycling could reduce waste and prevent it from contaminating ecosystems;

IC: "Given you don't do just that but also mandate it, I would have a rethink about this too. Anyone coming to this proposal based on the title and preamble, is going to be annoyed by all the requirements and regulations in the active clauses."

OOC: With so many mandates this might actually not be Mild.

Believing it is the duty of the World Assembly to promote such practices in order to protect the health of all beings and the ecosystems they inhabit;

IC: "If that is the World Assembly's duty, then it should not promote this proposal."

OOC: See later comments.

"recyclable waste product" as waste that can be safely reprocessed into a material that can be reused for manufacturing;

IC: "This definition is at the heart of the proposal and also at the heart of the problem. First of all, you're talking about products. Why that and not materials? Or just "recyclable waste"? There's no reason to specify a product, when a product can mean a very specific thing¹ and thus wouldn't catch everything you could be expected to want to catch. Secondly, what does "safely" mean in the context? Industrial processes, when contained in appropriate facilities and done by trained professionals, are considered safe, even if they required dangerous chemicals or high heat². Yet if done by non-professionals in primitive conditions, it can be extremely dangerous and a huge health hazard. Going by this definition, either all waste fits the definition or nothing non-compostable does. Also, why does it have the requirement to be reused for manufacturing³ specifically?"

OOC Notes: 1. A food item wrapped in a plastic wrapper is the product. The plastic wrapper is not. The plastic wrapper might be a product when it's sold to the food manufacturer, but not when it is discarded as waste. This distinction is not nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking, it's an example from RL; free-for-all plastic recycling bins over here are only allowed for non-product plastic items. So the plastic bottle that once contained shampoo, would be allowed, but a plastic bottle you're sold to put your own drink in when going hiking, is not. The latter is a product, the former is, in essence, a wrapping around the product.

2. Metal, glass, plastic, paper...

3. Paper fiber will eventually become so short that it can no longer be made new items out of, and will end up being burned or composted or such, so that could exclude many kinds of cardboard from the recyclables. I know you have a "burn or put in a landfill" thing later on, but this is the DEFINITION where you're excluding many such things from being affected by the proposal in its entirety.

"recycling centre" as a structure where recyclable waste products and salvageable waste products are processed into reusable products suitable for repurposing;

IC: "You are still hung up on these mythical recycling centers. Do you know how recycling centers actually work? They're waste collection and sorting facilities. The waste goes from them to the processing facilities where it is turned into usable-for-manufacturing material, and from there the materials move to manufacturers. Trying to compress tall the steps into the same location is just not going to work, unless you want to make the health of people and environments worse by distributing the processing plants to be near where people live, instead of handling them - like any potentially dangerous industry - in a more concentrated way away from residential or ecologically important areas."

OOC: You don't even need recycling centers for the proposal work. Also, "reusable product" means the product can be reused as is - like glass bottles can be washed, re-labeled, re-filled and re-sold. "Repurposing" means using the material or product in a way that it wasn't used originally. Like you might take the glass bottles and decorate them and sell them as decorations instead of liquid containers. It also still has "salvageable waste products", which is no longer defined.

2. Compels member nations to ensure the availability of easily accessible, safe, and usable recycling centres for use by their businesses and inhabitants;

IC: "Consider doing away with the mythical recycling centers and simply require that nations have a recycling system that is easily accessible to their inhabitants and businesses."

3. Mandates recycling centres, pre-existing or otherwise, to be regularly upgraded and updated with the best possible improvements given the finances that might reasonably be allocated;

IC: "Same as above. If you make the suggested change, the "regularly upgraded and updated" will need to change, but that can be sorted out after you've done away with the original problem."

4. Authorises the use of the World Assembly General Fund, by member states, in order to ensure effective and reasonably-affordable compliance with clauses 2 and 3;

IC: "Definitely needs a modifier where the authorization is only granted if the nation is unable to comply, rather than unwilling."

5. Requires member nations to create initiatives, through penalisation or incentives, to:

1. raise awareness of recycling as a waste reduction method;
2. encourage inhabitants and businesses to use recycling centres to recycle recyclable waste products or salvage salvageable waste products;
3. promote the usage or purchase of items made from recycled materials;

OOC: Is this clause here only to justify your title? Or is it meant to be useful? If the latter, let me know and I'll point out the issues beyond using "salvageable waste products", which is no longer a thing for the proposal, and how recycling is not waste reduction.

6. Mandates that member nations implement these initiatives with practical benefits for inhabitants engaging in them;

IC: "What practical benefits? Do you mean paying people to recycle? Rather than nations simply having a law mandating one to recycle?"

7. Encourages member nations to create even more easily accessible collection systems for recyclable waste products and salvageable waste products, such as door side recycling or properly marked recycling bins;

IC: "You could just mandate this instead and do away with your delusions about recycling centers being the answer."

OOC: Also still uses "salvageable waste products".

8. Permits member nations to incinerate or landfill certain types of waste when the technology or infrastructure does not exist to process the waste efficiently in an environmentally friendly way;

IC: "What are these "certain types of waste"? And how efficient is efficient? And I hope you're aware that anything non-compostable will, when recycled, by necessity use up energy and work hours and materials, and thus cannot be hundred percent environmentally friendly."

OOC: And isn't "landfill" is a noun, instead of a verb.

9. Recommends that member nations, in their bureaucracies and public projects, use materials made from reused products to the greatest extent reasonably possible;

IC: "Or you could just reword this as "Mandates that member states utilize recycled materials whenever feasible", because it should be a mandate, and because there's no reason to specify bureaucracies and whatever public projects are supposed to be."

10. Tasks the World Assembly Science Program and member nations with collating and conducting available research to create or delegate the creation of more efficient or safer waste reduction or recycling methods;

OOC: If you have the requirement to keep the recyling systems up-to-date, instead of involving a second committee (General Fund counts as one), you could just recommend that nations share the necessary tech and know-how with one another. Not in exactly those words, but still. That way you wouldn't run into the issues with the patent protection resolution either.

11. Encourages member nations to work together or utilise the work of persons in their jurisdictions to conduct and collate the above research; and

OOC: ...what? You're making the WA committee do it in the previous clause, why should nations re-do the work? If you do away with the committee, and drop the "work of persons in their jurisdictions", you could replace both 10 and 11 with this.

12. Despite the above, requires member nations to pursue the least environmentally damaging viable alternative regarding waste reduction and recycling in cases where following any of the above mandates would result in a worse net outcome for the environment than not following them.

OOC: Another "...what?" Except this time I really can't properly parse this. Is this making the entire thing optional?

[Bananaistan]

4. Authorises the use of the World Assembly General Fund, by member states, in order to ensure effective and reasonably-affordable compliance with clauses 2 and 3;

"Opposed. Member states going off with blank cheques from the General Fund? This is nutse. The combination of this section and section 3 is that the entire General Fund would be exhausted to provide gold plated recycling centres on every street corner. The General Fund is not a bottomless pit."

[Honeydewistania]

"Hopefully this third draft will help address some concerns."

[Comfed]

This is really heavy-handed.

[Honeydewistania]

Changed the title to Convention on Recycling from Recycling Mandates. Let me know if the new title is worse than the old one.

This is really heavy-handed.

Ok, and...?

[Kenmoria]

This is really heavy-handed.

(OOC: That is intentional. The proposal is a ‘strong’ piece of legislation and tackles a rather serious issue.)

[Comfed]

This is really heavy-handed.

(OOC: That is intentional. The proposal is a ‘strong’ piece of legislation and tackles a rather serious issue.)

As a NatSover I’m biased, but I think that this is not a serious enough issue to create “strong” legislation for.

[Honeydewistania]

(OOC: That is intentional. The proposal is a ‘strong’ piece of legislation and tackles a rather serious issue.)

As a NatSover I’m biased, but I think that this is not a serious enough issue to create “strong” legislation for.

Recycling is quite an important topic in my book, but each to their own I guess.

Does anyone have suggestions/questions/comments?

[Araraukar]

Does anyone have suggestions/questions/comments?

OOC: Awfully long gap between clause 5 main clause and subclauses. More comments will need to wait, or else Mr. Tired Brain is going to get involved again.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Honeydewistania, the code’s broken on clauses 1 and 5. I’ve put the correct version below.)

Code: Select all

[box][align=center]Convention on Recycling
Proposed by: [nation]Honeydewistania[/nation][/align][floatleft]Category: Environmental[/floatleft][floatright]Area of Effect: All Businesses - Strong[/floatright] [hr][/hr]

The General Assembly,

Acknowledging the large volume of waste produced in member nations partly as a result of rapid economic growth;

Recognising that large amounts of this non-compostable waste could cause serious damage to the health of animals and ecosystems;

Convinced that promoting and mandating recycling could reduce waste and prevent it from contaminating ecosystems;

Believing it is the duty of the World Assembly to promote such practices in order to protect the health of all beings and the ecosystems they inhabit; Hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution: [list=a]
[*] "recyclable waste" as waste that can be safely reprocessed into a material or product that can be reused for a practical purpose such as in manufacturing,
[*] "recycled materials" as recyclable waste that has undergone the recycling process and has become a reusable material;[/list]

2. Compels member nations to ensure the availability of easily accessible, safe, and usable recycling systems for use by their businesses and inhabitants;

3. Mandates that member nations regularly upgrade and update any structures or buildings involved in the recycling process, pre-existing or otherwise, with the best possible improvements given the finances that might reasonably be allocated;

4. Authorises the use of the World Assembly General Fund, by member states, in order to ensure effective and reasonably-affordable compliance with clauses 2 and 3, for those that states that are reasonably unable to achieve these mandates otherwise;

5. Requires member nations to create initiatives, through penalisation or incentives, to:[list=a][*] raise awareness of recycling as a waste reduction method;
[*] encourage inhabitants and businesses to use recycling centres to recycle recyclable waste;
[*] promote the usage or purchase of items made from recycled materials;[/list]

6. Mandates that member nations implement these initiatives to practical benefit;

7. Obligates member nations to create further accessible collection systems for recyclable waste, such as door side recycling or properly marked recycling bins;

8. Permits member states to incinerate or create and use landfills for certain types of waste when the technology or infrastructure does not exist, in that nation, to process the waste efficiently in a more environmentally-friendly way;

9. Mandates that member nations employ recycled materials wherever reasonably feasible;

10. Recommends member states to collate and conduct research to create or delegate the creation of more efficient or safer waste reduction or recycling methods, and to share this knowledge between each other;

11. Despite the above, requires member nations to pursue the least environmentally damaging viable alternative regarding waste reduction and recycling in cases where following any of the above mandates would result in a worse net outcome for the environment than not following them.

Co-authored by [nation]Kenmoria[/nation].[/box]

[Honeydewistania]

Fixed, hopefully

[Honeydewistania]

Bumpity.

[Honeydewistania]

Bump due to repeal at vote, and hoping for last minute feedback before this gets submitted on Sunday. (Maybe a little later)

[Kenmoria]

“I’ve just noticed that the title’s changed. I think that this is an improvement, but the adjective ‘proper’ feels off to me, possibly because it is somewhat ambiguous. Perhaps ‘effective’ or ‘effectual’ would be a better fit?”

[Honeydewistania]

“I’ve just noticed that the title’s changed. I think that this is an improvement, but the adjective ‘proper’ feels off to me, possibly because it is somewhat ambiguous. Perhaps ‘effective’ or ‘effectual’ would be a better fit?”

"Consider it done."

[Imperium Anglorum]

This is at vote.

[Imperium Anglorum]

4. Authorises the use of the World Assembly General Fund, by member states, in order to ensure effective and reasonably-affordable compliance with clauses 2 and 3;

"Opposed. Member states going off with blank cheques from the General Fund? This is nutse. The combination of this section and section 3 is that the entire General Fund would be exhausted to provide gold plated recycling centres on every street corner. The General Fund is not a bottomless pit."

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley: We agree with this assessment. Moreover, echoing the views of our allies and friends (OOC: here) related to the resolutions recently passed by the delegation from Cretox, we feel that this proposal overuses the term "reasonable". The man on the via Dubris, is not a policymaker. It is far from obvious what specific policies should be enacted or what "finances[] might reasonably be allocated' to further a goal which is, almost by necessity, dependent on state support. Nor does it seem especially prudent to set up kerbside collection of materials to be composted. People can compost in their gardens without state support.

On the other hand, we feel also that the technology sharing portions here are less than best. We ought to share non-rivalrous goods such as intellectual property insofar as effects on future productivity improvements are minimal. Improved efficiency in recycling, reuse, and -- more importantly -- reduction, would do far more to improve productivity and reduce transition costs than World Assembly funds for possibly inefficient programmes.

[Gaen Vale Queendom]

This law will have almost no effect since it requires too much interpretation from nations and nations will just sneak out of their responsibilities. Too many things are left to interpretation :

For instance
2. Compels member nations to ensure the availability of easily accessible, safe, and usable recycling systems for use by their businesses and inhabitants;
So recycling does not have to be effective as long as it is "usable". Also what is a safe recycling system? Does that mean having snipers on roofs to protect the precious bins or tanks to escort garbage trucks? Why is the word safe mentioned there? If it's about work safety regulations, their is already a WA resolution about it so it does not need to be mentionned.

3. Mandates that member nations regularly upgrade and update any structures or buildings involved in the recycling process, pre-existing or otherwise, with the best possible improvements given the finances that might reasonably be allocated;
A nation that has a tight budget will simply say that they cannot put a single dollar to these upgrades, thus no upgrades. No percentage of budget or specifics were given, thus this clause is not effective.

4. Authorises the use of the World Assembly General Fund, by member states, in order to ensure effective and reasonably-affordable compliance with clauses 2 and 3, for those that states that are reasonably unable to achieve these mandates otherwise;
It's sad, my nation is suddenly "reasonably" unable to put money for these clauses, hand over all that sweet money now. More seriously, every nation has a "reasonable" reason not to spend on recycling such as education, welfare, etc. They seem like a reasonable reason to me honestly so I guess everyone has World Assembly General Funds now.

7. Obligates member nations to create further accessible collection systems for recyclable waste, such as door side recycling or properly marked recycling bins;
Does that mean everyone has to create more collection systems even if we already have enough? For instance my nation has more bins then trees following an issue on this matter. Does that mean I must add MORE bins? I guess my industry will shift to produce bigger bins to put our unused bins inside.

10. Recommends member states to collate and conduct research to create or delegate the creation of more efficient or safer waste reduction or recycling methods, and to share this knowledge between each other;
Yes, I'm sure many people will simply give me all their reasearch for free. Since my people don't have computers, we can't do advanced reasearch, so I guess people will just give me their technology on a silver plate.