[DEFEATED] Aquatic Cleaning Act

[Untecna]

For starters, the resolution is so vague that it honestly doesn't do anything. A member nation could just say they slapped some "regulations" or "funding" and then call it a day without doing anything.

This is a benefit! It means nations can choose how they want to help the environment, and how much of their resources they should allocate. Since the resolution is so vague, it is likely to encourage environmental help, without crippling governments or industries with additional rules and taxes. We love the vagueness of this resolution. If the resolution were more detailed, it would be more likely to have flaws or downsides.

...if you are vague and don't really make a good requirement, people will simply do an absolute bare minimum and forget about it.

[Heidgaudr]

For starters, the resolution is so vague that it honestly doesn't do anything. A member nation could just say they slapped some "regulations" or "funding" and then call it a day without doing anything.

This is a benefit! It means nations can choose how they want to help the environment, and how much of their resources they should allocate. Since the resolution is so vague, it is likely to encourage environmental help, without crippling governments or industries with additional rules and taxes. We love the vagueness of this resolution. If the resolution were more detailed, it would be more likely to have flaws or downsides.

"Quite the opposite, actually. The vagueness allows members to practically ignore its mandates."

[Untecna]

The Community of Lakeside Valley votes FOR

We have no idea why there is so much opposition to this extremely basic, seemingly uncontroversial resolution. The resolution is not strict, and will not control nations. The resolution has no obvious downsides. The resolution is extremely vague and basic, meaning nations can spend as much or as little tax money as they please on the task of cleaning our waters. It seems like an incredibly obvious choice. The resolution essentially says "help aquatic environments". It does not specify how, it just says to do so in some way shape or form. How is that controversial? Why are people voting against "help aquatic environments"? We are voicing our full support, and we also want to know what propaganda campaign possibly made this so upsetting.

People are voting against it because it's bad. It doesn't make good requirements, nor does it have anything that peaks our interest. Many a better resolution could be made than this.

It's not that people don't want to help their environments - it's because the resolution, as written, is horrible.

[Kishah]

For starters, the resolution is so vague that it honestly doesn't do anything. A member nation could just say they slapped some "regulations" or "funding" and then call it a day without doing anything.

This is a benefit! It means nations can choose how they want to help the environment, and how much of their resources they should allocate. Since the resolution is so vague, it is likely to encourage environmental help, without crippling governments or industries with additional rules and taxes. We love the vagueness of this resolution. If the resolution were more detailed, it would be more likely to have flaws or downsides.

That's not bad actually, that's a new view i've seen to this. I would've thought nations would want it to be more specific so they can brace better if needed for an industrial reduction in their country.

[Outer Sparta]

For starters, the resolution is so vague that it honestly doesn't do anything. A member nation could just say they slapped some "regulations" or "funding" and then call it a day without doing anything.

This is a benefit! It means nations can choose how they want to help the environment, and how much of their resources they should allocate. Since the resolution is so vague, it is likely to encourage environmental help, without crippling governments or industries with additional rules and taxes. We love the vagueness of this resolution. If the resolution were more detailed, it would be more likely to have flaws or downsides.

Not exactly. There are no enforcement mechanisms present for what the resolution wants to achieve. How would the WA know countries are compliant? Would they punish nations for not allocating resources to protect anything deemed an aquatic environment (which doesn't even have a proper definition).

[Lakeside Valley]

"Quite the opposite, actually. The vagueness allows members to practically ignore its mandates."

Members shouldn't be forced to follow strict directions on how to help the waters. The vagueness does allow nations to ignore the objective of the resolution, yes. But it also ensures nations won't be hindered by regulations if they can't afford to be. We really like how open ended this resolution is, and it's capacity to accommodate every nations needs. Yes, being so relaxed does have downsides. However, we think the capacity to help the environment while still making sure no nation has to be hurt to do so, far outweighs the downsides.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

"Quite the opposite, actually. The vagueness allows members to practically ignore its mandates."

Members shouldn't be forced to follow strict directions on how to help the waters. The vagueness does allow nations to ignore the objective of the resolution, yes. But it also ensures nations won't be hindered by regulations if they can't afford to be. We really like how open ended this resolution is, and it's capacity to accommodate every nations needs. Yes, being so relaxed does have downsides. However, we think the capacity to help the environment while still making sure no nation has to be hurt to do so, far outweighs the downsides.

I think you’re giving it more credit than it deserves. It does not look like a well-thought out minimalist piece. It looks carelessly thrown together.

[Untecna]

"Quite the opposite, actually. The vagueness allows members to practically ignore its mandates."

Members shouldn't be forced to follow strict directions on how to help the waters. The vagueness does allow nations to ignore the objective of the resolution, yes. But it also ensures nations won't be hindered by regulations if they can't afford to be. We really like how open ended this resolution is, and it's capacity to accommodate every nations needs. Yes, being so relaxed does have downsides. However, we think the capacity to help the environment while still making sure no nation has to be hurt to do so, far outweighs the downsides.

Why should members, who willingly joined on the basis of using this international law, be able to ignore said international law?

There's a reason these complaints against the proposal at hand exist, and it is because that allowing members to ignore a resolution shouldn't at all be a thing.

[Heidgaudr]

"Quite the opposite, actually. The vagueness allows members to practically ignore its mandates."

Members shouldn't be forced to follow strict directions on how to help the waters. The vagueness does allow nations to ignore the objective of the resolution, yes. But it also ensures nations won't be hindered by regulations if they can't afford to be. We really like how open ended this resolution is, and it's capacity to accommodate every nations needs. Yes, being so relaxed does have downsides. However, we think the capacity to help the environment while still making sure no nation has to be hurt to do so, far outweighs the downsides.

"If a member nation wanted to protect the environment, they'd already have done so without this proposal. Resolutions are a way to force nations to act against their interests. This does nothing to actually enforce it in nations who do not wish to do so."

[Yxnadalsoxl]

Members shouldn't be forced to follow strict directions on how to help the waters. The vagueness does allow nations to ignore the objective of the resolution, yes. But it also ensures nations won't be hindered by regulations if they can't afford to be. We really like how open ended this resolution is, and it's capacity to accommodate every nations needs. Yes, being so relaxed does have downsides. However, we think the capacity to help the environment while still making sure no nation has to be hurt to do so, far outweighs the downsides.

Why should members, who willingly joined on the basis of using this international law, be able to ignore said international law?

These are the only "operative" clauses:

Hereby declares that all nations with aquatic ecosystems shall:

1. Place regulations to reduce and eventually eliminate aquatic pollution without compromising other ecosystems, and

Reduce, maybe by 0,000001%, would be compliance.
Eventually, maybe one day, maybe in the far far future, when all the protons have decayed.

2. Fund cleanup of waste within their aquatic ecosystems to the extent that aquatic pollution can be cleaned, if possible.

"I'm sorry WA, it's not possible. Kthxbai."

[Underwater Sovereignties]

The Federation of Underwater Sovereignties is partially in support of said legislation, due to being an entirely subaquatic entity. The surface nations need to be held accountable for dumping waste into the ocean. However, we understand the complaint that this proposal is too vague. We feel that better measures should be taken to assure that nations who do not have the resources to enact this legislation are able to. We should also point out that this does nothing to stop corporations who do not answer to the government from continuing to dump waste into bodies of water, that also needs to be addressed. The "regulations" could also refer to regulating member states instead of corporations, which could potentially be used as a loophole to avoid regulations in the first place, since the word is used so loosely here; this can also lead to member states choosing to regulate some industries, but not others.

[Yxnadalsoxl]

The surface nations need to be held accountable for dumping waste into the ocean.

Eventually. If possible.

[Attempted Socialism]

For starters, the resolution is so vague that it honestly doesn't do anything. A member nation could just say they slapped some "regulations" or "funding" and then call it a day without doing anything.

This is a benefit! It means nations can choose how they want to help the environment, and how much of their resources they should allocate. Since the resolution is so vague, it is likely to encourage environmental help, without crippling governments or industries with additional rules and taxes. We love the vagueness of this resolution. If the resolution were more detailed, it would be more likely to have flaws or downsides.

This novel recasting of a debilitating vagueness and lack of any semblance of effective legislation as something meritorious is endearing but not a sound or cogent argument.

[Ablon the renegade]

How vague and incomplete. (well, at least he tried and somehow reached the quorum, and I probably couldn't do somethin like this anyways)

[Brapan]

[Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses - Mild. ~Goob the Game Mod]

The World Assembly,

Knowing that natural bodies of water are being ever polluted by the dumping of waste into them, industrial or otherwise,

Noting that this pollution causes serious harm to life within aquatic ecosystems, thus possibly causing imbalances which can destroy said ecosystems,

Believing that aquatic ecosystems should be protected, and reducing, eliminating, and cleaning pollution is the most effective way to do so,

Hereby declares that all nations with aquatic ecosystems shall:

1. Place regulations to reduce and eventually eliminate aquatic pollution without compromising other ecosystems, and

2. Fund cleanup of waste within their aquatic ecosystems to the extent that aquatic pollution can be cleaned, if possible.

[Outer Sparta]

How vague and incomplete. (well, at least he tried and somehow reached the quorum, and I probably couldn't do somethin like this anyways)

It's very easy to reach quorum. The author put more effort into telegram stamps than in their actual proposal.

[Floofybit]

I too clap for their effort, but not for the proposal. The proposal is NOT good in the current state

[Ablon the renegade]

How vague and incomplete. (well, at least he tried and somehow reached the quorum, and I probably couldn't do somethin like this anyways)

It's very easy to reach quorum. The author put more effort into telegram stamps than in their actual proposal.

He deserve , instead of putting more effort in telegrams stamps, he should put more effort in the proposal next time.
I know what to do if write a proposal one day, put effort in the proposal, not the telegrams.

[Outer Sparta]

It's very easy to reach quorum. The author put more effort into telegram stamps than in their actual proposal.

He deserve , instead of putting more effort in telegrams stamps, he should put more effort in the proposal next time.

More likely he wanted his 15 minutes of fame given the lack of work on the actual proposal.

[Syfo Republik]

If we clean the Ocean, where will the fish live?

[Juansonia]

"Also what is the thing about compromising other ecosystems? How would eliminating aquatic pollution compromise another ecosystem? Are you suggesting there needs to be some amount of pollution allowed, to avoid some harm to some other ecosystems? That doesn't make sense to me."

"Removing waste from an aquatic ecosystem can compromise nearby ecosystems if, for example, waste is simply relocated to another ecosystem." - Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia.

[Rhenna]

Its a bit small, and could use some lengthening

[Las Duendes]

We will place regulation to reduce pollution eventually, by officially demanding that grandchildren generation figure it out. They still working on potty training now, but they say they got it no problem couple year tops.

Top scientist say that to extent that aquatic pollution can be cleaned, it's not possible. Shrug.

[Lakeside Valley]

If we clean the Ocean, where will the fish live?

State funded aquaculture fisheries, of course! We are willing to take all your fish for free, if you cannot afford to house them yourself.

[Amogan]

I believe that this proposal is too vague to know what it entails, so my nation will be voting against this act.