[DRAFT #1] World Assembly Climate Crisis Cooperative (WACCC)

[HM Queen Elizabeth III]

Hey Everyone, after a withdrawn attempt to make a Security Council Declaration regarding the Reality of Climate Change, I have decided to go down a new route, while also maintaining what I was trying to achieve before.

World Assembly Climate Crisis Cooperative (WACCC)
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.
Category: Free Trade Strength: Mild Proposed by: HM Queen Elizabeth III

The General Assembly,

Defines

1. “Climate change”, as scientifically-observed changes in temperatures and weather patterns.
2. “Scientific observation”, as recording knowledge of the observable plane through sentient senses or using scientific tools and/or instruments.
3. “Sentient activities”, as activities that can be attributed to sentient influence, specifically when it comes to carbon dioxide and other pollutant emissions.
4. “Fossil fuels”, as a natural fuel formed in a geological manner from the remains of living things.
5. “Greenhouse gases”, as gases that trap heat within the atmosphere, namely carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, halogenated gases, and nitrogen oxides.
6. “Industrialisation”, as when sentient beings began using industrial machines and burning fossil fuels.
7. "Habitable worlds", as planets of any type which have the potential to create and sustain environments hospitable to life.
8. "Climate crisis", as when habitable worlds, by scientific observation, are around 1.1°C warmer than it was at the start of their industrialisation.

Asserts

1. There are worlds within the multiverse that are in climate crisis.
2. That if a habitable world is, by scientific observation, more than 1.5°C warmer than it was at the start of their industrialisation, climate change will be unpreventable and unrecoverable for life.
3. The main drivers of climate change in habitable worlds are due to the following sentient activities:
   
   1. Electricity and heat production, i.e. burning fossil fuels which generate greenhouse gases;
   2. Agriculture, i.e. the production of manure creates the greenhouse gas methane;
   3. Transportation, i.e. the greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles;
   4. Forestry, i.e. removal of organisms which turn carbon dioxide into oxygen;
   5. Manufacturing, i.e. the creation of certain objects emit greenhouse gases.
4. The consequences of climate change in habitable worlds are:
   
   1. Severe droughts, caused by increased evaporation which reduces water within soil and vegetation;
   2. Water scarcity, caused by warmer air which can hold more water than cooler air;
   3. Severe wildfires, caused by the lack of water in vegetation and soil;
   4. Rising sea levels, caused by the melting of polar ice caps and glaciers;
   5. Flooding, caused by rising sea levels and superstorms;
   6. Melting polar ice caps, caused by the increased warmth of the atmosphere;
   7. Super storms, caused by increased water vapour which intensifies storms;
   8. Declining biodiversity, caused by mass migration and its effect on ecosystems;
   9. Mass migration, caused by previously habitable regions being no longer habitable for life.
   10. Total relocation, caused by a previously habitable world being, or imminently, inhabitable.

Creates

1. The World Assembly Climate Crisis Cooperative (WACCC), which seeks to coordinate between the various committees of the World Assembly and Member States affected by climate crises.
   1. Monitoring information within the World Assembly Scientific Programme (WASP) to determine if habitable worlds, in which Member States reside, are in a climate crisis.
   2. Coordinating with the committees and agencies of the World Assembly to ensure that Member States have support for the various consequences of climate change. Including, but not limited to:
      1. Climate refugee mass migration within a habitable world;
      2. Total relocation of a Member State from a habitable world which is, or imminently, in an unpreventable and/or unrecoverable state for life;
      3. Humanitarian aid to provide medical assistance, potable drinking water, and emergency food supplies;
      4. Education on preventing climate change and, in worse case scenarios, how to survive a climate crisis;
      5. Preservation of indigenous organisms which would cease to exist in a world that is inhabitable.
   3. Member States are required to allocate 0.005% of their Gross Domestic Product per capita to the WACCC so that they may effectively and efficiently carry out their duties and responsibilities.
      
      1. Member States may apply for a waiver to this allocation if they can prove that they have demonstrably helped another Member State in a climate crisis in an equivalent manner.
      2. Member States may apply for a waiver to allocation if paying it would force them to break monetary commitments to which they are legally bound.
      3. All waivers to the allocation last for five (5) years and are renewable.
   4. Member States are not required to acquire the services of the WACCC, but their constituents may acquire the services of the WACCC if they so desire.

[HM Queen Elizabeth III]

I look forward to constructive criticism and responses to this proposal. I am not sold on the Category and Strength, however. Any thoughts on that would be appreciated.

[Cappedore]

I look forward to constructive criticism and responses to this proposal. I am not sold on the Category and Strength, however. Any thoughts on that would be appreciated.

Neither am I. I'd argue this certainly lies under Environment.

This just feels like a massively overarching proposal covering issues that so many others have already covered. You'd have to repeal them all first in order to get this one through GA Secretariat.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Behold, I present comments, in red.

(Image)
World Assembly Climate Crisis Cooperative (WACCC)
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.
Category: Free Trade Strength: Mild Proposed by: HM Queen Elizabeth III

I concur that ‘free trade’ is likely not the correct choice of category here. The environmental category would be a better fit. A mild strength is correct, of course.
The General Assembly,

Defines

1. “Climate change”, as scientifically-observed changes in temperatures and weather patterns. I am not sure what ‘scientifically-observed’ adds to this definition. If someone who has been living in an area for sixty years, in a country with massive climate-change far beyond the real world, then that person might simply see rises in temperature through normal observation, rather than anything distinctive scientific.
   
   More fundamentally, climate-change does not refer to the scientific study of meteorological trends, but rather to the trends themselves. By nesting actual changes in temperature and weather behind a lens of perception, the definition implies that climate-change is a lens of analysis, rather than being an actual phenomenon. Simply remove ‘scientifically-observed’.
2. “Scientific observation”, as recording knowledge of the observable plane through sentient senses or using scientific tools and/or instruments. I read the proposal going downwards, so I admit that this does neuter some of what I said about the first definition, though I would say that I do not regard normal sensory activity as being particularly scientific. This definition seems to be more definition ‘empirical observation’ than ‘scientific observation’. Furthermore, I do not regard a definition of scientific observation as being necessary, for the reasons that I stated in the first definition. If you do decide to keep this, what is the ‘observable plane’. A plane is a two-dimensional space, as I would naturally understand it, so this seems to refer to observable reality. However, I question what there is aside from reality, which could be relevant.
3. “Sentient activities”, as activities that can be attributed to sentient influence, specifically when it comes to carbon dioxide and other pollutant emissions. This definition is certainly coherent, but I think you want to refer to sapience, rather than sentience, as the deciding factor. Something sentient merely has sensation, whereas something sapient has self-awareness, in a simplification.
4. “Fossil fuels”, as a natural fuel formed in a geological manner from the remains of living things. Given that the term defined is ‘fossil fuels’, I would change the first few words of the definition to be ‘natural fuels’, for the sake of grammatical agreement.
5. “Greenhouse gases”, as gases that trap heat within the atmosphere, namely carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, halogenated gases, and nitrogen oxides. The use of ‘namely’ here suggests that these are the only greenhouse-gases in existence. However, others do exist. As such, I recommend altering ‘namely’ to ‘for example’, or simply removing the examples. Definitions rarely feature exemplifications, and I am not certain that examples are necessary here.
6. “Industrialisation”, as when sentient beings began using industrial machines and burning fossil fuels. The comment about sapience is relevant here as well. Also, this definition strikes me as remarkably circular. Defining ‘industrialisation’ in terms of the use of something ‘industrial’ does not clarify what is the defining characteristic at play. This definition also means that no civilisation which does not use fossil fuels can be industrialised, in spite of the fact that this is entirely possible.
7. "Habitable worlds", as planets of any type which have the potential to create and sustain environments hospitable to life. I would argue that any planet, if sufficiently terraformed, has the possibility to harbour at least bacterial life. This definition needs some work.
8. "Climate crisis", as when habitable worlds, by scientific observation, are around 1.1°C warmer than it was at the start of their industrialisation. I can see why you would want to include scientific observation, but it really isn’t necessary. Simply define a climate-crisis as being when habitable worlds do have a rise in temperature of the requisite degree. Hiding that behind scientific observation has implications that there might be lenses of analysis in which a crisis is not occurring, which is not the impression you presumably want to create.
   
   I also very, very much question why you chose 1•1 degrees centigrade. The GA has, among other species, living deities, disembodied voices, sapient potatoes, immortal gnomes, and plants. It is a sometimes-argued assertion that the GA should cater more to MT, human nations than t other sorts. Regardless of that, however, you do need to bear in mind that different societies, even among humanities, might have different levels of response to any given phenomenon.
   
   It is for this reason that, as a general rule, I would not recommend including any specific numbers in your proposal. This is a recommendation that I have shamelessly copied from other players, I would clarify. Instead, place into your proposal the reasons why these numbers exist. What it is about 1•1 degrees which makes it so dangerous? State that, rather than the number.

Asserts

1. There are worlds within the multiverse that are in climate crisis. [color=#CC1208]I would simplify this to ‘there are nations in the General Assembly that are…’. Some voters dislike unnecessary reference to multiverses and, while I disagree with said voters, they do have votes nonetheless.
2. That if a habitable world is, by scientific observation, more than 1.5°C warmer than it was at the start of their industrialisation, climate change will be unpreventable and unrecoverable for life. I dispute this. In the real-world, I fully agree. Where there are nations with technology from four-hundred years into the future, however, I dispute this.
3. The main drivers of climate change in habitable worlds are due to the following sentient activities: I could go through the entire list, but I will simply say that your proposal remains far too grounded in what actual nations are doing in the real-world. Even among human, MT nations, there is variance which your proposal does not take into account.
   
   1. Electricity and heat production, i.e. burning fossil fuels which generate greenhouse gases;
   2. Agriculture, i.e. the production of manure creates the greenhouse gas methane;
   3. Transportation, i.e. the greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles;
   4. Forestry, i.e. removal of organisms which turn carbon dioxide into oxygen;
   5. Manufacturing, i.e. the creation of certain objects emit greenhouse gases.
4. The consequences of climate change in habitable worlds are: I don’t have any particular comment on this list. Polar ice-caps is something on which I will pontificate, in that some nations could have glacial areas on their equatorial regions. I suggest referring to the melting of glacial areas more generally.
   
   1. Severe droughts, caused by increased evaporation which reduces water within soil and vegetation;
   2. Water scarcity, caused by warmer air which can hold more water than cooler air;
   3. Severe wildfires, caused by the lack of water in vegetation and soil;
   4. Rising sea levels, caused by the melting of polar ice caps and glaciers;
   5. Flooding, caused by rising sea levels and superstorms;
   6. Melting polar ice caps, caused by the increased warmth of the atmosphere;
   7. Super storms, caused by increased water vapour which intensifies storms;
   8. Declining biodiversity, caused by mass migration and its effect on ecosystems;
   9. Mass migration, caused by previously habitable regions being no longer habitable for life.
   10. Total relocation, caused by a previously habitable world being, or imminently, inhabitable.

Creates

1. The World Assembly Climate Crisis Cooperative (WACCC), which seeks to coordinate between the various committees of the World Assembly and Member States affected by climate crises. Is there an existing committee that you could use for this? I ask that question as a standard one. Reusing an old committees is always better than making a new one.
   1. Monitoring information within the World Assembly Scientific Programme (WASP) to determine if habitable worlds, in which Member States reside, are in a climate crisis.
   2. Coordinating with the committees and agencies of the World Assembly to ensure that Member States have support for the various consequences of climate change. Including, but not limited to: Rework this to remove the full stop in the middle of the clause, by turning it into a comma.
      1. Climate refugee mass migration within a habitable world;
      2. Total relocation of a Member State from a habitable world which is, or imminently, in an unpreventable and/or unrecoverable state for life;
      3. Humanitarian aid to provide medical assistance, potable drinking water, and emergency food supplies;
      4. Education on preventing climate change and, in worse case scenarios, how to survive a climate crisis;
      5. Preservation of indigenous organisms which would cease to exist in a world that is inhabitable. In this clause, I am left confused as to who is doing this. Is the WACCC doing this directly? Is it supporting member-states to do so? Are member-states simply doing so themselves?
   3. Member States are required to allocate 0.005% of their Gross Domestic Product per capita to the WACCC so that they may effectively and efficiently carry out their duties and responsibilities. This clause is the one clause that renders this definitively legal. That makes choice of category more difficult, since the only mandate or even recommendation on member-nations is to give money. Also, my previous comment about arbitrary numbers being bad applies as well here.
      
      1. Member States may apply for a waiver to this allocation if they can prove that they have demonstrably helped another Member State in a climate crisis in an equivalent manner.
      2. Member States may apply for a waiver to allocation if paying it would force them to break monetary commitments to which they are legally bound. I know that I mentioned to remove the arbitrary 0•005%, yet I still feel as though I should mention that there is no chance that a member-state will be plunged into jeopardy by one twenty-thousandth of its gross domestic product per capita. For context, that would mandate the entire nation of the United Kingdom to give one pound and fifty-nine pence. I doubt the Government would even notice that.
      3. All waivers to the allocation last for five (5) years and are renewable.
   4. Member States are not required to acquire the services of the WACCC, but their constituents may acquire the services of the WACCC if they so desire. Does this mean constituent subdivisions or constituent persons?

That was quite a lot of critique, but the idea here is definitely workable.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

Gaius Marius Blythe. We believe it is unlikely that any ongoing warming is occurring on any planets where the World Assembly has sufficient collective jurisdiction to have a dispositive effect on the climate. viewtopic.php?p=35010138#p35010138.

[Unibot III]

Arriving late to committee, Ambassador Ard Van Haldron entered with vegan cake stains still smeared across the front of his turtleneck from his surprise 60th birthday bash. The new ambassador had a spring in his step, reminiscent of a “first-day-at-school” enthusiasm.

“Good day,” said Van Haldron, flipping through a enormous green binder. “I would first like to respond to a comment made by the previous speaker who argued that the WA likely did not represent a significant enough share of any planetary system to impact global warming. This for me represents a dangerous misconception that permeates every discussion regarding climate action at every level, in every country, everywhere. No one country or organization has a controlling interest in climate change. We all have to do our part and it is incumbent on the WA, as the largest and most established of international institutions to exercise leadership on this file.”

A lifelong peacenik with big dreams, Ard had naively accepted the role of interim ambassador in exchange for declining to run for a third term as president. His decision was based on two misunderstandings (sadly, all too common), first: that the World Assembly helped people, and second: even if it was helping someone, that Unibot meaningfully supported these endeavours. Even Ard’s predecessor, Ms. Montebello (now on leave for a severe gambling addiction “family obligations”), could have told him otherwise…

“My feeling however is that climate goals will vary in local contexts, specific to the atmosphere, and that the last section on financing is the area most neglected by existing legislation,” said Ard. “How are developing countries supposed to finance their efforts to transition and mitigate the effects of climate change?” He asked rhetorically. “We cannot continue to establish more and more climate regulation without due consideration of the need for redistribution and financing climate action in the most impoverished of member-states.”

The ambassador ended his remarks with thanks and an offer to endorse any meaningful climate legislation proposal.. a nice gesture which forced many of the room’s remaining attendees to spontaneously blurt out a disavowal of any such endorsement (“I HATE UNIBOTIANS. MY WHOLE FAMILY HATES UNIBOTIANS. I DIVESTED STOCK. EVERYTHING IS DIVESTED!” cried one politician up-for-re-election in a desperate plea for the cameras.) Ard looked on in horror.

[HM Queen Elizabeth III]

I would like to thank everyone for their comments. They have not gone unnoticed. I am currently very busy IRL, so I will get back to this proposal when I can. Right now, I am thinking of separating this proposal into two. The WACCC will stay here in the General Assembly, while I am going to try again in the Security Council with a Declaration, if it doesn't break any rules.