[DEFEATED] Aquatic Cleaning Act

[Underwater Sovereignties]

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

The delegate from the Underwater Sovereignties was absolutely bemused by this statement, and quickly responded:

"What kind of question is that?? Do you really think that cleaning the ocean implies making it uninhabitable
for wildlife? Please explain why you think this to be the case."

[Underwater Sovereignties]

I strongly encourage you (the author) to withdraw this, and then draft this for longer on the forums before resubmitting. That way we can give you feedback to help this proposal improve.

As written, this proposal is far too vague (for example, as said above, which "regulations" do nations need to place? Is de minimis regulation permitted, as long as they have the ostensible goal of eliminating aquatic pollution at some "eventual" point in time?)

After thinking this over, I agree. I think it's rather unfortunate that this legislation won't pass, considering that my nation would be positively affected by it, but it still fails to address various loopholes and exactly who and what will be regulated. I pointed out earlier that it doesn't address the issue of corporations polluting bodies of water; it fails to differentiate between regulations that target government entities and corporations, and what specific actions should be prohibited. Theoretically, certain nations could choose to regulate their own governments, but exploit the vagueness of this proposal by allowing corporate entities to completely ignore whatever regulations they choose to put in place. They could also choose to constitute what counts as polluting bodies of water, which also isn't addressed here. For example, what if a government or corporation decides that dumping oil into the ocean doesn't count as polluting it?

[Yxnadalsoxl]

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

The delegate from the Underwater Sovereignties was absolutely bemused by this statement, and quickly responded:

"What kind of question is that?? Do you really think that cleaning the ocean implies making it uninhabitable
for wildlife? Please explain why you think this to be the case."

I think the Ambassador meant to say that fish are pollution.

[Maogs]

This just seems to be to vague and short for a much more complex issue. It just doesn't really satisfy, especially for such an important problem. Maybe revise, extend, and draft again?

[Yxnadalsoxl]

I'm beyond dismayed that, as of right now, more than 25% of the vote is gearing toward approval. What percentage of WA nations are inhabited by non-sapients? Non-sapiency looks like a requirement to vote for this.

[Malamute]

While the Borderlands of Malamute supports the protection of environmental ecosystems, Malamute will be voting against the "Aquatic Cleaning Act" for the general lack of specificity. The lackluster definition creates too many questions that will be left up to individual nations to answer. If a nation wanted to impose their own regulations, they would've already done so, and this resolution is so vague that it doesn't do anything to standardize these types of protective regulation for aquatic ecosystems. Malamute would also like to add that the pollution in aquatic ecosystems tends to have adverse affects on any nations that use them, which is why regulations to prevent this pollution should be in place through the general assembly.
For example, the lack of any specification of size leaves it too far up to interpretation for this resolution to do anything.
"eventually eliminate aquatic pollution", what does this imply, does this imply the creation of new aquatic pollution or the elimination of existing pollution. This can give opposing nations a easy way out of the regulations this should produce.
Another question arises with the mention "without compromising other ecosystems." Is this saying there is a definite harm to other ecosystems by fixing another?

(OOC: This is my first time writing something like this, so I hope it's decent. As for the resolutions just... wow, these are in all honesty offensive to the resolutions waiting behind them. I'm glad to see them getting stomped out with against votes.)

[Team Leo]

I support the impact this proposal will have, but I think this proposal can use more work.

[Hermes Express 123]

“The issue this proposal means to solve is an important one, and I commend the Representative and staff whom authored it. That being said, the Act is unbelievably vague, to the extent that the Act is unlikely to fufill it’s function properly due to it’s sheer vagueness As such, I’m afraid we must vote against this”.

- His Royal Highness, Prince Adalbert II of the Royal House of Hohenzollern, the Imperial Representative of Greater Prussia to the World Assembly.

[Outer Sparta]

I'm beyond dismayed that, as of right now, more than 25% of the vote is gearing toward approval. What percentage of WA nations are inhabited by non-sapients? Non-sapiency looks like a requirement to vote for this.

Either the author has people fooled with an eye-catching environmental legislation or they have done so much campaigning just to get that sweet badge. I have WA telegrams turned off because most are spam.

[Guamtemala]

Baby's First WA Proposal

against

[Sylh Alanor]

I'm beyond dismayed that, as of right now, more than 25% of the vote is gearing toward approval. What percentage of WA nations are inhabited by non-sapients? Non-sapiency looks like a requirement to vote for this.

God forbid people vote against the majority opinion.

[Outer Sparta]

I'm beyond dismayed that, as of right now, more than 25% of the vote is gearing toward approval. What percentage of WA nations are inhabited by non-sapients? Non-sapiency looks like a requirement to vote for this.

God forbid people vote against the majority opinion.

Or that those who voted for voted for something akin to the lines of environmental lip service. Cleaning up aquatic habitats is a worthy cause, but this proposal doesn't do anything concrete to back up its intentions.

[Yxnadalsoxl]

God forbid people vote against the majority opinion.

Or that those who voted for voted for something akin to the lines of environmental lip service. Cleaning up aquatic habitats is a worthy cause, but this proposal doesn't do anything concrete to back up its intentions.

Indeed. Even when this fails at vote, every nation will be compliant with it, since it does literally nothing, and this cannot be disputed. I'd like to see the Delegates to vote for say what this text does actually do. They shall come empty-handed.

[Yxnadalsoxl]

It is beyond desheartening to see Delegates who should know better on the Approvals list! They. Should. Know. Better.

[Buddhists of Janra]

The proposal would be good if it were more detailed, it is vague and does not explain how this cleaning should be done.

[Floofybit]

I'm beyond dismayed that, as of right now, more than 25% of the vote is gearing toward approval. What percentage of WA nations are inhabited by non-sapients? Non-sapiency looks like a requirement to vote for this.

God forbid people vote against the majority opinion.

It's just that... This proposal is terrible. In theory it seems good, who doesn't love a good eco-friendly proposal? However, if you read the proposal you would see it's flaws. There is no definition of aquatic ecosystem, so this technically could enforce nations to regulate fishbowls, bathtubs, and even puddles. It also doesn't provide specific ways to actually fix the problem, it just sets goals. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no reason to vote for a proposal made by a badge grinder when a much better replacement can be easily made. Also, I'm not the best at WA, so sorry if I'm being dumb right now.

[Outer Sparta]

God forbid people vote against the majority opinion.

It's just that... This proposal is terrible. In theory it seems good, who doesn't love a good eco-friendly proposal? However, if you read the proposal you would see it's flaws. There is no definition of aquatic ecosystem, so this technically could enforce nations to regulate fishbowls, bathtubs, and even puddles. It also doesn't provide specific ways to actually fix the problem, it just sets goals. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no reason to vote for a proposal made by a badge grinder when a much better replacement can be easily made. Also, I'm not the best at WA, so sorry if I'm being dumb right now.

You pretty much nailed it. Most people voting for this are just doing it for the proposal's lip service to the environment. However, similar to companies paying lip service to the environment without doing anything, this seems to be a greenwashing attempt.

[Kumaraj]

This is the kingdom of kumaraj we are supporting the aqua cleaning campaign because the seas and oceans produce the most amount of oxygen and if we don't our people shall all die so let all members of t nation States contribute

[Kumaraj]

We will first collect all disposed plastic and use it to convert it energy called biomass energy mass exporting
It internationally and we shall also fine people 250 usd

[Floofybit]

This is the kingdom of kumaraj we are supporting the aqua cleaning campaign because the seas and oceans produce the most amount of oxygen and if we don't our people shall all die so let all members of t nation States contribute

Let's not vote for. Yes, the idea is a worthy cause, but the act isn't. Let's vote against so we can get someone who actually knows what they are doing to make a proposal like this

[Guamtemala]

[ooc] this is the worst proposal i've ever seen, are you 12
[/ooc] This is the worst proposal I've ever seen, are you 12?

[Ulneas]

Although the Democratic Republic of Ulneas would benefit from less-polluted waters, my nation must vote against this resolution due to a lack of specificity in its provisions.

[Aicrowian Canada]

I vote yes! clean the oceans #teamseas

[Floofybit]

I vote yes! clean the oceans #teamseas

Vote against! Cleaning the seas is good but this proposal is not. Vote against so we can get a better sea cleaning proposal.

[Aicrowian Canada]

Oh. i already voted for