[PASSED] Repeal Landfill Regulation Act

[Honeydewistania]

The World Assembly,

Observing the excessive micromanagement in General Assembly Resolution #520, “Landfill Regulation Act”, which includes mandating that member nations create agencies to ensure compliance, unnecessary handholding and bureaucracy that is better left to be decided by member nations themselves;

Further observing that this overreach ignores member nations who use private companies to survey environments, which results in member nations being forced to create agencies they will not use, meaning that the bureaucracy is even more pointless;

Concerned that the poor definition of SWL includes locations such as scrap metal yards, which pose little to no significant harm to public health or the surrounding environment, resulting in harsh mandates being placed on these ‘landfills’ that could cost exorbitant amounts of money;

Dismayed that systems for the collection and removal of leachate are mandated regardless of the potential danger the leachate causes to public health or to the environment, yet another excessively broad mandate;

Further concerned that implementing such unnecessary regulations negatively affect the operations of ‘solid waste landfills’ with very little potential positive benefit;

Realising that placing these mandates on SWLs without any form of subsidy or funding could lead to costs being passed on to the consumers, therefore giving them incentives to dispose of solid waste at unregulated areas instead and defeat the resolution’s purpose of protecting the environment from solid waste;

Convinced that a poorly executed and overreaching resolution ought to be repealed, hereby:

Repeals General Assembly Resolution 520, “Landfill Regulation Act”.

[South St Maarten]

The World Assembly,

Observing the excessive micromanagement in General Assembly Resolution #520, “Landfill Regulation Act”, which includes mandating that member nations create agencies to ensure compliance, unnecessary handholding and bureaucracy that is better left to be decided by member nations themselves;

Further observing that this overreach ignores member nations who use private companies to survey environments, which results in member nations being forced to create agencies they will not use, meaning that the bureaucracy is even more pointless;

Incensed that the poor definition of SWL includes locations such as scrap metal yards, which pose little to no significant harm to public health or the surrounding environment, resulting in harsh mandates being placed on these ‘landfills’ that could cost exorbitant amounts of money;

Dismayed that systems for the collection and removal of leachate are mandated regardless of the potential danger the leachate causes to public health or to the environment, yet another excessively broad mandate;

Distressed that implementing such unnecessary regulations negatively affect the operations of ‘solid waste landfills’ with very little potential positive benefit;

Noting that previously passed resolutions such as "Transboundary Water Use Act", "Preventing Groundwater Contamination" and "Convention on Freshwater Shortages" already severely limit the transnational impact of landfills, and realising that the problems caused by landfills are better to be addressed on a national scale instead;

Convinced that regulating landfills is a national concern rather than an international issue, and that an overreaching resolution ought to be repealed, hereby:

Repeals General Assembly Resolution 520, “Landfill Regulation Act”.

IC: Opposed. Our nation believes that it is the duty of the WA to regulate the usage of landfills for all nations. We love excessive bureaucracy here in South St Maarten :-p

OOC: Mild support.

[Cretox State]

Ooh, an instarepeal right as voting is starting! Looks like Tinhampton has some competition!

Observing the excessive micromanagement in General Assembly Resolution #520, “Landfill Regulation Act”, which includes mandating that member nations create agencies to ensure compliance, unnecessary handholding and bureaucracy that is better left to be decided by member nations themselves;

What the proposal actually says:

establish, if such does not already exist, a state agency or similar organization with the responsibility of inspecting and regulating SWLs in accordance with this resolution and reviewing complaints regarding the operation of particular SWLs;

Member nations could easily add regulating landfills to the mission of a parks service or similar and comply with this. A decentralized system of municipal inspectors also works.

Further observing that this overreach ignores member nations who use private companies to survey environments, which results in member nations being forced to create agencies they will not use, meaning that the bureaucracy is even more pointless;

This is untrue: "a state agency or similar organization". A reasonable interpretation of this clause does not preclude using private organizations.

Incensed that the poor definition of SWL includes locations such as scrap metal yards, which pose little to no significant harm to public health or the surrounding environment, resulting in harsh mandates being placed on these ‘landfills’ that could cost exorbitant amounts of money;

What the proposal actually says:

include effective physical barriers designed to protect the surrounding environment and groundwater from waste contained in them and leachate originating from them;

include effective systems for the collection and removal of leachate for treatment and environmentally safe disposal; and

are operated in such a way that minimizes potential environmental and health hazards resulting from their operations, within reason;

Physical barriers: Does your scrap metal yard have a fence to keep metal from getting in a nearby river? Is that all said scrap metal yard needs as an "effective" barrier? Then you're fine.

Leachate: Does your scrap metal yard have no real ability to produce leachate? Then an "effective" system is no system at all.

Minimizes potential hazards: Do you seriously have a problem with this?

Dismayed that systems for the collection and removal of leachate are mandated regardless of the potential danger the leachate causes to public health or to the environment, yet another excessively broad mandate;

Same as above.

Distressed that implementing such unnecessary regulations negatively affect the operations of ‘solid waste landfills’ with very little potential positive benefit;

Same as above. Also, this is vague.

Noting that previously passed resolutions such as "Transboundary Water Use Act", "Preventing Groundwater Contamination" and "Convention on Freshwater Shortages" already severely limit the transnational impact of landfills, and realising that the problems caused by landfills are better to be addressed on a national scale instead;

The purpose of this proposal is to establish a regulatory framework. Landfills are a public health concern and warrant more specific legislation to address them.

Convinced that regulating landfills is a national concern rather than an international issue, and that an overreaching resolution ought to be repealed, hereby:

So natsov.

This instarepeal reads like intentional misinterpretation wrapped in natsov.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Further observing that this overreach ignores member nations who use private companies to survey environments, which results in member nations being forced to create agencies they will not use, meaning that the bureaucracy is even more pointless;

This is untrue: "a state agency or similar organization". A reasonable interpretation of this clause does not preclude using private organizations.

This remark here is what led me to comment on this response more broadly; the response's interpretation is, in my view, a hell of a stretch and definitely unreasonable.

Incensed that the poor definition of SWL includes locations such as scrap metal yards, which pose little to no significant harm to public health or the surrounding environment, resulting in harsh mandates being placed on these ‘landfills’ that could cost exorbitant amounts of money;

What the proposal actually says:

include effective physical barriers designed to protect the surrounding environment and groundwater from waste contained in them and leachate originating from them;

include effective systems for the collection and removal of leachate for treatment and environmentally safe disposal; and

are operated in such a way that minimizes potential environmental and health hazards resulting from their operations, within reason;

Physical barriers: Does your scrap metal yard have a fence to keep metal from getting in a nearby river? Is that all said scrap metal yard needs as an "effective" barrier? Then you're fine.

Leachate: Does your scrap metal yard have no real ability to produce leachate? Then an "effective" system is no system at all.

Minimizes potential hazards: Do you seriously have a problem with this?

I don't buy this is a reasonable interpretation of the resolution; the phrasing 'effective systems for the collection and removal of leachate' are not made contingent on ex ante or ex post estimations of what leachate is produced.

Noting that previously passed resolutions such as "Transboundary Water Use Act", "Preventing Groundwater Contamination" and "Convention on Freshwater Shortages" already severely limit the transnational impact of landfills, and realising that the problems caused by landfills are better to be addressed on a national scale instead;

The purpose of this proposal is to establish a regulatory framework. Landfills are a public health concern and warrant more specific legislation to address them.

Convinced that regulating landfills is a national concern rather than an international issue, and that an overreaching resolution ought to be repealed, hereby:

So natsov.

This instarepeal reads like intentional misinterpretation wrapped in natsov.

If the argument here is that something is not a matter of international concern, why is it a matter of international concern? This touches straight to the problem-level in a proposal, specifically the stock issue of significance. Significance is something an author must show.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Separate post.

To the OP, I'd redraft the proposal to avoid phrasing like 'distressed' and other somewhat melodramatic verbs.

[Honeydewistania]

Separate post.

To the OP, I'd redraft the proposal to avoid phrasing like 'distressed' and other somewhat melodramatic verbs.

Working on that

Ooh, an instarepeal right as voting is starting! Looks like Tinhampton has some competition!

Observing the excessive micromanagement in General Assembly Resolution #520, “Landfill Regulation Act”, which includes mandating that member nations create agencies to ensure compliance, unnecessary handholding and bureaucracy that is better left to be decided by member nations themselves;

What the proposal actually says:

establish, if such does not already exist, a state agency or similar organization with the responsibility of inspecting and regulating SWLs in accordance with this resolution and reviewing complaints regarding the operation of particular SWLs;

Member nations could easily add regulating landfills to the mission of a parks service or similar and comply with this. A decentralized system of municipal inspectors also works.

Keyword ‘establish’, so you’re still creating an agency within a park service, so you’re still creating bureaucracy. That isn’t necessary.

Further observing that this overreach ignores member nations who use private companies to survey environments, which results in member nations being forced to create agencies they will not use, meaning that the bureaucracy is even more pointless;

This is untrue: "a state agency or similar organization". A reasonable interpretation of this clause does not preclude using private organizations.

How is that a reasonable interpretation? And even then, you’re still requiring the establishment of this ‘similar organisation’.

Incensed that the poor definition of SWL includes locations such as scrap metal yards, which pose little to no significant harm to public health or the surrounding environment, resulting in harsh mandates being placed on these ‘landfills’ that could cost exorbitant amounts of money;

What the proposal actually says:

include effective physical barriers designed to protect the surrounding environment and groundwater from waste contained in them and leachate originating from them;

include effective systems for the collection and removal of leachate for treatment and environmentally safe disposal; and

are operated in such a way that minimizes potential environmental and health hazards resulting from their operations, within reason;

Physical barriers: Does your scrap metal yard have a fence to keep metal from getting in a nearby river? Is that all said scrap metal yard needs as an "effective" barrier? Then you're fine.

Leachate: Does your scrap metal yard have no real ability to produce leachate? Then an "effective" system is no system at all.

Minimizes potential hazards: Do you seriously have a problem with this?

I’m with IA on this one, and don’t buy your interpretation.

Dismayed that systems for the collection and removal of leachate are mandated regardless of the potential danger the leachate causes to public health or to the environment, yet another excessively broad mandate;

Same as above.

You do realise that if it rains, and there’s runoff, and the iron oxide mixes with the water that’s leachate ? And it’s not even toxic, or danger to anyone?

Distressed that implementing such unnecessary regulations negatively affect the operations of ‘solid waste landfills’ with very little potential positive benefit;

Same as above. Also, this is vague.

Not vague. Unnecessary regulations = your resolution, ‘the operations of ‘solid waste landfills’’ equals to my scrap yards. ‘potential positive benefit’ is the environmental benefit you were striving for.

Noting that previously passed resolutions such as "Transboundary Water Use Act", "Preventing Groundwater Contamination" and "Convention on Freshwater Shortages" already severely limit the transnational impact of landfills, and realising that the problems caused by landfills are better to be addressed on a national scale instead;

The purpose of this proposal is to establish a regulatory framework. Landfills are a public health concern and warrant more specific legislation to address them.

Do you have any sources for landfills causing public health concerns in real life? Just curious.

Convinced that regulating landfills is a national concern rather than an international issue, and that an overreaching resolution ought to be repealed, hereby:

So natsov.

You can dismiss a ‘b-bb-b-bb-but MUH soVereignity!!!’ argument, but don’t dismiss actual arguments that are true, because I am yet to be convinced this is an international issue.

This instarepeal reads like intentional misinterpretation wrapped in natsov.

And your response reads like intentional misinterpretation too.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Does a scrap metal yard store scrap metal on a long term or permanent basis? Is scrap metal even a non-hazardous solid waste?

Edit: To be clear, if the answer to both questions is yes, then the scrap metal yard is in fact a dump and it’s not unreasonable to apply dump rules to it.

[Honeydewistania]

OOC: Does a scrap metal yard store scrap metal on a long term or permanent basis? Is scrap metal even a non-hazardous solid waste?

Edit: To be clear, if the answer to both questions is yes, then the scrap metal yard is in fact a dump and it’s not unreasonable to apply dump rules to it.

True, but any ‘leachate’ formed from scrap metal doesn’t really damage the environment or anything really, so it seems weird to require the collection and disposal of this stuff.

[Groot]

OOC:

Do you have any sources for landfills causing public health concerns in real life? Just curious.

Here's an Oxford University Press article referencing a 2016 study:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160524211817.htm#:~:text=The%20results%20showed%20a%20strong,and%20hospitalizations%20for%20respiratory%20diseases.

From the NIH website, here's an abstract from a case study in South Africa:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6617357/

There are plenty more. It should be noted that it isn't just leachate that's an issue, it's off-gassing and particulate matter as well.

On a side note, I grew up within two miles of a landfill in NYC. Might explain a few things....

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC:

Do you have any sources for landfills causing public health concerns in real life? Just curious.

Here's an Oxford University Press article referencing a 2016 study:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160524211817.htm#:~:text=The%20results%20showed%20a%20strong,and%20hospitalizations%20for%20respiratory%20diseases.

From the NIH website, here's an abstract from a case study in South Africa:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6617357/

There are plenty more. It should be noted that it isn't just leachate that's an issue, it's off-gassing and particulate matter as well.

On a side note, I grew up within two miles of a landfill in NYC. Might explain a few things....

Ooc: bah, you're no worse than the rest of us.

Honeydew, landfills are like any other concentrated contaminant. They cause health problems upon exposure. The degree and significance of impact depends on the concentration, length and mechanism of exposure, and contaminant. Soil doesn't spread contaminants as fast as water or air, but make no mistake that leechates can be a notable risk for soil contamination.

Dusting off that old HAZMAT response cert is always fun.

[Honeydewistania]

Okay, I'll admit that landfills may be an area for legislation, and changes have been made to make it more arguing against execution rather than premise

[Honeydewistania]

Just a clarification, does:

establish, if such does not already exist, a state agency or similar organization with the responsibility of inspecting and regulating SWLs in accordance with this resolution and reviewing complaints regarding the operation of particular SWLs;

mean that the agency must be used or must be established?

[Separatist Peoples]

Okay, I'll admit that landfills may be an area for legislation, and changes have been made to make it more arguing against execution rather than premise

Ooc: I disagree that you can't make a pitch against international regulation of landfills. Just that you can't make a pitch against their health risks.

[Separatist Peoples]

Just a clarification, does:

establish, if such does not already exist, a state agency or similar organization with the responsibility of inspecting and regulating SWLs in accordance with this resolution and reviewing complaints regarding the operation of particular SWLs;

mean that the agency must be used or must be established?

Established based on the text.

[Honeydewistania]

Just a clarification, does:

establish, if such does not already exist, a state agency or similar organization with the responsibility of inspecting and regulating SWLs in accordance with this resolution and reviewing complaints regarding the operation of particular SWLs;

mean that the agency must be used or must be established?

Established based on the text.

Thanks

[Servilis]

The World Assembly,

Observing the excessive micromanagement in General Assembly Resolution #520, “Landfill Regulation Act”, which includes mandating that member nations create agencies to ensure compliance, unnecessary handholding and bureaucracy that is better left to be decided by member nations themselves;

Further observing that this overreach ignores member nations who use private companies to survey environments, which results in member nations being forced to create agencies they will not use, meaning that the bureaucracy is even more pointless;

Concerned that the poor definition of SWL includes locations such as scrap metal yards, which pose little to no significant harm to public health or the surrounding environment, resulting in harsh mandates being placed on these ‘landfills’ that could cost exorbitant amounts of money;

Dismayed that systems for the collection and removal of leachate are mandated regardless of the potential danger the leachate causes to public health or to the environment, yet another excessively broad mandate;

Further concerned that implementing such unnecessary regulations negatively affect the operations of ‘solid waste landfills’ with very little potential positive benefit;

Realising that placing these mandates on SWLs without any form of subsidy or funding could lead to costs being passed on to the consumers, therefore giving them incentives to dispose of solid waste at unregulated areas instead and defeat the resolution’s purpose of protecting the environment from solid waste;

Convinced that a poorly executed and overreaching resolution ought to be repealed, hereby:

Repeals General Assembly Resolution 520, “Landfill Regulation Act”.

How the hell did this get past the SC, I know it's not entirely NatSov, but like 95% of this proposal is just NatSov arguments, I also don't see the correlation of intentions between the NatSov arguments used and the definition arguments used,

If you think GA#520 infringes on NatSov, and you put that as your first argument, why would you care if the definitions are poor,

Pretty disingenuous if I'm honest, but yes, it is legal because NatSov isn't it's only argument, still, the intent here is not that of a definitive one, rather a NatSov one, I believe Honeydewistania is only pointing out the poor execution so that they can pass the repeal on behalf of anti-Regulationists, unless they have a Replacement Legislation,

Then again, "Concerned that the poor definition of SWL includes locations such as scrap metal yards, which pose little to no significant harm to public health or the surrounding environment," as an argument is poorly made, Scrap Metal Yards contain hazards, in fact, lots of 'em, might not affect the surrounding environment, sure, but anyone who goes in there to scavenge will find themselves injured because of lack of regulation, also, Eco-Terrorists could literally use Scrap Metal Yards to place radioactive electronics that are poorly insulated or literally any scrap metal that could radiate and I quote, "the bad stuff",

Also, the proposal never said that there would be no subsidies or funding for SWL regulatory bodies, not to mention that it literally clarifies that these are State owned or governmented owned bodies which therefore are subsidised by the government and/or state,

"Further concerned that implementing such unnecessary regulations negatively affect the operations of ‘solid waste landfills’ with very little potential positive benefit;" unnecessary, where do you get that?

also, "Further observing that this overreach ignores member nations who use private companies to survey environments, which results in member nations being forced to create agencies they will not use, meaning that the bureaucracy is even more pointless;" is wrong, considering that regardless of a nations laws, if they are in the WA, they are required to follow the rules, a NatSov argument like this still won't hold such validity even if backed up with non-NatSov arguments, the nation will be forced to implore the use of these government agencies, whether they like it or not, as they are in the WA, and so are in compliance with their rules,

tis' a bad faith repeal, o' dear land of the honey dew

[Honeydewistania]

How the hell did this get past the SC, I know it's not entirely NatSov, but like 95% of this proposal is just NatSov arguments, I also don't see the correlation of intentions between the NatSov arguments used and the definition arguments used,

That is incorrect.

If you think GA#520 infringes on NatSov, and you put that as your first argument, why would you care if the definitions are poor,

I have a problem with creating a bureaucracy and wasting money. It’s not a "get away big scary WA gubbenmunt" argument,

Pretty disingenuous if I'm honest, but yes, it is legal because NatSov isn't it's only argument, still, the intent here is not that of a definitive one, rather a NatSov one, I believe Honeydewistania is only pointing out the poor execution so that they can pass the repeal on behalf of anti-Regulationists, unless they have a Replacement Legislation,

I have a problem with poor legislation, not regulations. I support an adequate replacement that addresses my concerns.

Then again, "Concerned that the poor definition of SWL includes locations such as scrap metal yards, which pose little to no significant harm to public health or the surrounding environment," as an argument is poorly made, Scrap Metal Yards contain hazards, in fact, lots of 'em, might not affect the surrounding environment, sure, but anyone who goes in there to scavenge will find themselves injured because of lack of regulation, also, Eco-Terrorists could literally use Scrap Metal Yards to place radioactive electronics that are poorly insulated or literally any scrap metal that could radiate and I quote, "the bad stuff",

This is a silly argument. The mandate is broad enough such that one or two people who could potentially cut themselves will not fall under a public health hazard, so it’s more like putting a fence up.

Also, the proposal never said that there would be no subsidies or funding for SWL regulatory bodies, not to mention that it literally clarifies that these are State owned or governmented owned bodies which therefore are subsidised by the government and/or state,

I don’t care about the regulatory bodies, what I was talking about is that landfills owners don’t get any. The landfill owner has to place unnecessary stuff that costs money, and the government is under no obligation to give them any.

"Further concerned that implementing such unnecessary regulations negatively affect the operations of ‘solid waste landfills’ with very little potential positive benefit;" unnecessary, where do you get that?

That’s not unnecessary, and I got that from reading the text.

also, "Further observing that this overreach ignores member nations who use private companies to survey environments, which results in member nations being forced to create agencies they will not use, meaning that the bureaucracy is even more pointless;" is wrong, considering that regardless of a nations laws, if they are in the WA, they are required to follow the rules, a NatSov argument like this still won't hold such validity even if backed up with non-NatSov arguments, the nation will be forced to implore the use of these government agencies, whether they like it or not, as they are in the WA, and so are in compliance with their rules,

No, you are talking a lot of poppycock. Sep earlier explained that only the establishment of these organisations are required. Member nations can ensure compliance through other means. Member nations aren’t under any obligation to actually use these agencies.

tis' a bad faith repeal, o' dear land of the honey dew

Your arguments are wrong, so it’s not. I’m not anti-regulations or anti-environment, I’m anti-poorly executed resolutions.

[Kenmoria]

“I have voted in favour of this legislation. Though I don’t agree with all the arguments presented, the presence of even a few flaws does justify a repeal, so that a resolution correcting these flaws can be introduced. Hence, full support.”

[Refuge Isle]

“I have voted in favour of this legislation. Though I don’t agree with all the arguments presented, the presence of even a few flaws does justify a repeal, so that a resolution correcting these flaws can be introduced. Hence, full support.”

"Ah, partial support from the Kenmorian delegation, then."

[Kenmoria]

“I have voted in favour of this legislation. Though I don’t agree with all the arguments presented, the presence of even a few flaws does justify a repeal, so that a resolution correcting these flaws can be introduced. Hence, full support.”

"Ah, partial support from the Kenmorian delegation, then."

“Well, the voting system only allows me to provide whole numbers of votes, so it might as well be full support. Maybe I’ll start a petition to allow fractions.”

[Ultimus Tritonis]

I rather not support this proposal as my region has highly benefited from it, so I had voted against the legislation, though I wonder how this had gotten past the council, from further observation, this had not affected private economies in my own band of nations, I am rather concerned of the arguements of the repeal act,
The regulation of the environment had benefited the nations that are depending on their tourist industry, likewise mine,
Observing that Honeydewistania's arguement are aswell poorly executed, instead of repealing the legislation a better alternative would've been to create a replacement legislation that allots a better outcome and a less conflicted result for that matter.
Inevitably the repeal of this act will again affect the nations that had been benefiting from it.

[Goobergunchia]

The General Assembly resolution Repeal "Landfill Regulation Act" was passed 9,244 votes to 5,630, and implemented in all WA member nations.