[Draft] Repeal "Restrictions on Hydraulic Fracturing"

[Honeydewistania]

General Assembly Resolution #417 "Restrictions on Hydraulic Fracturing" (Category: Environmental; Area of Effect: All Businesses - Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Acknowledging General Assembly Resolution 417 "Restrictions on Hydraulic Fracturing" as a resolution aimed at limiting the dangerous potential of fracturing underground rocks to release natural gas, also known as fracking;

Finding that it is not hydraulic fracturing, but rather, the improper disposal of well fluids, which leads to groundwater contamination and induced seismic activity since near-impermeable rocks thousands of metres below the surface have little ability to change surface-level groundwater compositions and large underground disposals of fluids can change geological conditions, respectively;

Recognising that the harmful potential of hydraulic fracturing is already limited by extant legislation passed by this assembly such as:

• General Assembly Resolution #357 "Promotion of Clean Energy", which mandates member nations with access to cleaner energy make a good faith effort to utilise them, reducing the less than necessary usage of fracking to obtain fossil fuels;
• General Assembly Resolution #441 "Convention on Freshwater Shortages", which prohibits the disposal of hazardous waste into public drinking waters, meaning that it is illegal for fracking fluid to be dumped in groundwater reserves used for public consumption,
• General Assembly Resolution #445 "Greenhouse Gas Cap and Trade Program", which establishes punitive fees for nations that produce excessive amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, which will reduce the release of said emissions during both the process of hydraulic fracturing and the burning of fossil fuels obtained from fracking,
• General Assembly Resolution #453 "Preventing Groundwater Contamination", which protects aquifiers from potentially dangerous chemicals such as fracking fluid, further preventing freshwater from contamination;

Troubled that international law such as GA#417 could ignore local knowledge of how hydraulic fracturing affects the environment, and that such a broad ban might not be in the interests of environments and those that inhabit them;

Dismayed that such a broad ban on hydraulic fracturing present in GA#417 could result in:

• member nations using inefficient and expensive ways to obtain natural gas, further resulting in unnecessarily higher fuel prices and negatively affected incomes,
• an increase in usage of sources of fuel such as coal, which produce much more greenhouse gas when burnt compared to natural gas, further resulting in negative impacts to the health of ecosystems and the living things that inhabit them,
• member nations resorting to purchasing cheaper natural gas from non-member nations which may not have legislation restricting hydraulic fracturing as much, but also may not have essential worker or environmental protective legislation in place, further resulting in member nations directly or indirectly endorsing morally repugnant nations and their activities,
• the economies of settlements reliant on hydraulic fracturing to obtain natural gas reserves being severely impacted, further resulting in mass unemployment, closure of businesses and more loss of income; and

Believing that GA#417 yields more negative effects than positive effects, and that a resolution that fails to effectively promote clean energy and the disruption of economies of member nations should be repealed with immediate effect;

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution 417 "Restrictions on Hydraulic Fracturing".

Co-authored by Imperium Anglorum.

ur tenacity is to be applauded tho

Let's see how this will unfold...

[Picairn]

Full support.

[Honeydewistania]

Full support.

Thank you.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Tentative support. The NatSov arguments are hardly convincing, ambassador, as states may have a greater interest in ignoring degredation of public and environmental resources despite greater local knowledge. However, the broader economic argument you make is better developed by far, and justifies at least an attempt to revisit the question."

[Honeydewistania]

"Tentative support. The NatSov arguments are hardly convincing, ambassador, as states may have a greater interest in ignoring degredation of public and environmental resources despite greater local knowledge. However, the broader economic argument you make is better developed by far, and justifies at least an attempt to revisit the question."

"Would a removal of the NatSov clauses satisfy you? If it's unnecessary filler argument, I can see it being removed."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Tentative support. The NatSov arguments are hardly convincing, ambassador, as states may have a greater interest in ignoring degredation of public and environmental resources despite greater local knowledge. However, the broader economic argument you make is better developed by far, and justifies at least an attempt to revisit the question."

"Would a removal of the NatSov clauses satisfy you? If it's unnecessary filler argument, I can see it being removed."

"I cannot say whether it is necessary or not, Ambassador. It lends your argument rhetorical support. It simply isn't well considered. If you feel it is necessary, you should rework it to address the response that state interests that run counter to environmental protection may supercede the local knowledge of efficient and effective fracking regulations. If you do not, you may safely discard it. It is, my good Ambassador, entirely your call."

[Honeydewistania]

"I shall have a think about this. However your support for this (albeit tentatively) has been noted with thanks."

[Imperium Anglorum]

If you credit me as a co-author, you may use any wording desired from the following:

search.php?keywords=fracturing&terms=all&author=imperium+anglorum&sc=1&sf=titleonly&sr=posts&sk=t&sd=d&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search

[Honeydewistania]

Thank you IA, I have attached your name to the end of the proposal text

[Honeydewistania]

Minor edits incoming, make your comments

[Kenmoria]

“Clause a, b and c all being with ‘member nations resorting to’. There’s nothing wrong with this, but it does sound rather repetitive. This seems like a good repeal, with regards to the content.”

[Honeydewistania]

Better now?

[Kenmoria]

“In the ‘finding’ clause, ‘something which intuitively makes sense’ is unnecessary, and feels out of place in a piece of legislation. You might notice that these are all rather minor criticisms; this is because I don’t have any issues with the content of the draft.”

Better now?

(OOC: Yes, it flows better.)

[Honeydewistania]

“In the ‘finding’ clause, ‘something which intuitively makes sense’ is unnecessary, and feels out of place in a piece of legislation. You might notice that these are all rather minor criticisms; this is because I don’t have any issues with the content of the draft.”

Better now?

(OOC: Yes, it flows better.)

Good to hear and thanks, but is the opinion of others also in support of this?


I have also edited the draft accordingly

[Araraukar]

IC post.

Finding that it is not hydraulic fracturing, but rather, the improper disposal of well fluids, which leads to groundwater contamination and induced seismic activity since near-impermeable rocks thousands of metres below the surface have little ability to change surface-level groundwater compositions and large underground disposals of fluids can change geological conditions, respectively;

"Yes, and if fracking businesses didn't fuck things up so often when left to their own sensibilities, the whole issue would not exist. Do note, however, that if you drill through several layers of rock and soil that are impermeable to water and oil both, you're going to introduce some of the latter into the former, that would not have happened naturally. This on top of anything actually being taken out of the ground or put into it."

Troubled that international law such as GA#417 could ignore local knowledge of how hydraulic fracturing affects the environment, and that such a broad ban could not be in the interests of environments and those that inhabit them;

"I didn't know that "local knowledge" can overcome to laws of physics and chemistry. Also "could not be" sounds far more definite than you probably intend, and should perhaps be "might not be", instead."

Dismayed that such a broad ban on hydraulic fracturing present in GA#417 could result in:

"I am more dismayed that you're wanting to repeal it based on hypotheticals, ambassador, rather than actual flaws with the text."

member nations using inefficient and expensive ways to obtain natural gas, further resulting in unnecessarily higher fuel prices and negatively affected incomes,

"Good. It would help wean people off from using non-renewable fuels."

an increase in usage of sources of fuel such as coal, which produce much more greenhouse gas when burnt compared to natural gas, further resulting in negative impacts to the health of ecosystems and the living things that inhabit them,

"For the same amount of carbon in the fuel, you're going to put the same amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. You should perhaps do some extra research. Coal burning has additional issues compared to gas burning, but they are not the greenhouse gases. Also, the "health of ecosystems and the living things that inhabit them" are completely irrelevant to fracking business, and indeed the reason for the restrictions, so for a fracking supporter to claim those are suddenly so very important to them, it sounds at best hypocritical, at worse intentional lying out of your ass."

member nations resorting to purchasing cheaper natural gas from non-member nations which may not have legislation restricting hydraulic fracturing as much, but also may not have essential worker or environmental protective legislation in place, further resulting in member nations directly or indirectly endorsing morally repugnant nations and their activities,

"So make a resolution that bans such exploitation, instead. You're also ignoring how the resolution you seek to overturn could instead be a good enough reason for the member nation to wean itself off of non-renewable fuel altogether and seek more ecologically viable sources of energy. It is equally likely to what you're describing as the worst case scenario. This resembles an anti-abortionist describing all the health hazards that might result from having an abortion done, and ignoring completely all the negative effects an unwanted pregnancy and resulting unwanted child would cause to the individual in the long run."

the economies of settlements reliant on hydraulic fracturing to obtain natural gas reserves being severely impacted, further resulting in mass unemployment, closure of businesses and more loss of income;

"Given this has already been a resolution for some time - over two and a half years, in fact - I would think that any such issues as you're describing, would already have happened and appropriately dealt with. In addition to which, this is still a hypothetical, so equally likely the closure of polluting jobs might've led to people re-inventing their lives as working for greener energy companies or indeed innovations that in general reduce the need for any kind of non-renewable carbon sources."

Recognising that some of the harmful potential of hydraulic fracturing in member nations is already limited by extant World Assembly legislation such as "Preventing Groundwater Contamination" and "Convention on Freshwater Shortages",

"Since you seem to be aware of these issues, could you perhaps explain them in detail? To those assembled here, not necessarily in the proposal text - though such arguments would be stronger than the hypotheticals you now have."

Believing that GA#417 yields more negative effects than positive effects, and that a resolution that promotes unclean energy and the disruption of economies of member nations should be repealed with immediate effect;

OOC: Dropping to OOC to point out that that is not actually true and might get challenged as Honest Mistake (aka a lie).

[Honeydewistania]

"Since you seem to be aware of these issues, could you perhaps explain them in detail? To those assembled here, not necessarily in the proposal text - though such arguments would be stronger than the hypotheticals you now have."

"Clause 2 of 453:

Requires member states to plan future land use so that agricultural, industrial, and transportation pollutants will not present any measurable threat to the utility and potability of aquifers,

Will prevent fracking from having a measurable threat against groundwater.

Clause 6 of 441:

6. Prohibits member nations or any businesses contained wherein from disposing hazardous waste into oceanic bodies, international waters, and the public drinking supply;

Means you can't dump fracking fluid into groundwater. Also clause 2a:

Establishing a limit on the annual freshwater footprint of certain industries;

could reduce the water usage in fracking fluid, however the clause is optional so will not have full effect."

[Honeydewistania]

Would it be wise to draft a sort of replacement? It’s just say don’t dump your chemicals into the drinking supply, don’t deprive people of water to use for fracking etc.

[Kenmoria]

Would it be wise to draft a sort of replacement? It’s just say don’t dump your chemicals into the drinking supply, don’t deprive people of water to use for fracking etc.

(OOC: I recommend drafting a replacement, since a lot of people will only support a repeal with a replacement ready to go.)

[Honeydewistania]

self deleted

[Honeydewistania]

Bump

[Honeydewistania]

Bump

[Araraukar]

OOC: Do you have a replacement yet? No? Stop bumping.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't think replacement in the vein of the target proposal is necessary. If people want to extract stuff on their land, let them. Clean water regulations ought already to cover negligent or intentional pollution of groundwater. If they don't – I've not checked – then they should be written.

[Honeydewistania]

I don't think replacement in the vein of the target proposal is necessary. If people want to extract stuff on their land, let them. Clean water regulations ought already to cover negligent or intentional pollution of groundwater. If they don't – I've not checked – then they should be written.

Preventing Groundwater Contamination and Convention on Freshwater Shortages, both listed in the draft

[Imperium Anglorum]

Sadly, I don't think the general voting public will accept the fact that the ground is very deep and that water that we drink is only at the top of it, especially after media portrayals of fracking as the cause of water pollution, instead of the more mundane sounding and far less sexy "improper disposal of well fluids". If you bury dirty stuff miles underground below the water you drink, you don't need to drink chemicals.

The other main counterargument I can see is global warming. There is a rightful comprehension that fossil fuels cause global warming. But there is no similarly widespread notion that the Assembly already has strong carbon pricing which imposes large costs – ie disincentives – on carbon emissions. In NationStates, global warming is a mostly solved problem, with the conjunction of our carbon pricing scheme, renewable energy promotion projects, etc. Few people know about it though. I think it may be strategic to put those facts at the very top.

Broadly, most people on NationStates also are city dwellers (or at least live in suburbs). This almost has to be true because the vast majority of the Internet-accessing world live in urban areas. The urban-rural divide is real. And it's difficult to see from the cities the large economic benefits provided to rural communities who are finally able to afford capital investment for farms and get the tax revenues they need to support increasingly dilapidated rural hospital and schooling systems.