[PASSED] Repeal "Industrial Pollution Control"

[Frisbeeteria]

In light of the fact that Industrial Pollution Control currently looks like it's going to pass, I've quickly put together this instarepeal.

Repeal "Industrial Pollution Control"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #281

Affirming the need to reduce pollution to reasonable levels,

Regretting that the flaws present in GAR #281, "Industrial Pollution Control", necessitate its repeal,

Remarking in general that the target resolution's substantial lack of clarity makes it very difficult for member nations to discern their obligations under the resolution,

Noting the target resolution defines "threshold of environmental quality" as "the level of environmental degradation beyond which an area is deemed unsafe for population or unable to sustain natural flora and fauna",

Concerned that this definition does not distinguish between areas that are permanently as opposed to only temporarily unable to sustain native flora or fauna, and excludes areas that are able to sustain an equivalent level of biodiversity through non-native flora or fauna,

Distressed that this definition also fails to take into account the limited relevance of whether or not an area is unsafe for population when no population is actually present in that area, as well as that it is sometimes necessary to permanently make an area unsafe for population in order to safely dispose of dangerous materials, such as nuclear waste,

Perplexed that the target resolution only appears to require that member nations "adapt" (as opposed to "adopt") thresholds of environmental quality,

Further noting that the target resolution defines "pollution" as "chemical and energy contaminants that cause adverse change in the environment or the health of a population",

Dismayed by the lack of clarity as to what exactly constitutes an "energy contaminant" or an "adverse change in the environment or the health of a population", as well as the lack of any distinction between "pollution" and "industrial pollution" even though both terms are used throughout the resolution,

Confused by the target resolution's contradictory mandates with respect to pollution reduction targets, for which implementation is merely "recommended" in clause 3(iv) yet apparently required in clauses 4(i) and 4(ii),

Alarmed by the lack of an appeals process or even any clearly established criteria for the World Assembly Science Program's determination of pollution reduction targets, which - assuming the implementation of pollution targets is actually required - allows the Program to arbitrarily restrict industries in World Assembly member nations without any accountability,

The General Assembly,

Repeals GAR #281, "Industrial Pollution Control".

[The Dark Star Republic]

"This resolution can't be 'insta-repealed', because of the length of the queue behind it, so there's no hurry, but I do agree with the aim, and I'm glad someone is already working on it.

"There are fundamental contradictions in the resolution. At times targets are referred to as 'recommended', and at other times 'compliance' is to be 'ensured'. As such, you might try an argument that the resolution is in fact so poorly written that nations may not be able to understand their obligations under it, leading to conflicts in policy throughout the WA.

"There is also, glaringly, the failure to define what actually constitutes 'industrial pollution', as opposed to all 'pollution'.

"In general, though, your argument is already strong. Good luck!"

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[The Black Hat Guy]

Full support. There are a few other issues with the bill that probably aren't solid enough to include in the repeal, but led to my AGAINST vote as well (the clause about not causing harm to member nations comes to mind).

[Aboras]

This seems a little pre-mature. I will not vote for it in the unlikely event it comes to fruition.

[Auralia]

"There are fundamental contradictions in the resolution. At times targets are referred to as 'recommended', and at other times 'compliance' is to be 'ensured'. As such, you might try an argument that the resolution is in fact so poorly written that nations may not be able to understand their obligations under it, leading to conflicts in policy throughout the WA.

I noticed that too, but I wasn't sure exactly how to express it succinctly. I've tried again, though, and I think it makes sense:

Confused by the target resolution's contradictory mandates with respect to pollution reduction targets, for which implementation is merely "recommended" in clause 3(iv) yet apparently required in clauses 4(i) and 4(ii),

"There is also, glaringly, the failure to define what actually constitutes 'industrial pollution', as opposed to all 'pollution'.

Good catch! Added to the proposal.

[Chester Pearson]

Full support....

[The League of Brasses]

Will definitely be for.

On a side note, does anyone know how much the resolution will impact the economy during the time it is in effect? I am a little worried about that.

[Aboras]

On a side note, does anyone know how much the resolution will impact the economy during the time it is in effect? I am a little worried about that.

Depends on your country, etc.

[Normlpeople]

Absolute support.

[Hyfling]

Will definitely support, even if it is a little premature.

[The Dourian Embassy]

Beat me to the punch. But yeah, I can get behind this.

[Bananaistan]

The government of Bananaistan also wholeheartedly supports this.

[Bears Armed]

Despite my homeland's own environmental polices, we support this.

[Moronist Decisions]

I support this in principle. I haven't had a chance to read it that carefully yet, but I may have some things to mention later.

[United industrial]

i am 100% behind this if you need any help the government of united industrial will do what it can to pass this repeal and on behalf of my nation and its citizens i'd like to thank Auralia for drafting this repeal of the industrial pollution act

[Araraukar]

Since my absence from the debates prevented me from preventing the travesty entering the queue in the first place (OOC: I was ill, wasn't around to give Sakash advice, my bad), any sort of repeal to it has my support, as long as the repeal itself is sound in its arguments.

[Alpha Empire]

I will be watching for this if the need arises.

[Normlpeople]

That piece of trash passed, it is time to mobilize this thread. May have some issue with the sheeples that simply see "hurr, environment is good man"

[Hirota]

My government has directed me to express our support for this draft, and has directed me to vocally support when it comes up for debate.

[Separatist Peoples]

Full Support.

[Auralia]

I intend to submit this within the next few days.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"The only thing I don't like about this is the opening line. It's boilerplate fluff. I understand why you felt the need to include, but the first line is important: not every voter is going to have the time or inclination to read the proposal in full, in detail. Something punchier - perhaps combining the second line - to make it clear right from the outset that there are many problems in the proposal, would be more convincing to me.

"But, you have a good track record of getting repeals passed, so I'll defer to your judgement if you think the present wording is more politically expedient.

"In any case good luck."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Pacifist Chipmunks]

Regretting that the flaws present in GAR #281, "Industrial Pollution Control", necessitate its repeal,

We dislike the idea that mere "flaws" necessitate a repeal. If it is necessary that it be repealed, something more drastic than mere flaws must be producing this exigency. Or at least, we think you should make a rhetorical effort to make it appear as if there were something more drastic.

Remarking that the target resolution's general lack of clarity makes it very difficult for member nations to discern their obligations under the resolution,

All WA resolutions lack clarity, seeing as the gnomes limit us to only a certain number of characters. Presumably, you mean to argue that the text has a specific and irresponsible lack of clarity.

Noting the target resolution defines "threshold of environmental quality" as "the level of environmental degradation beyond which an area is deemed unsafe for population or unable to sustain natural flora and fauna",

Concerned that this definition does not distinguish between areas that are permanently as opposed to only temporarily unable to sustain native flora or fauna, in addition to excluding areas that are able to sustain an equivalent level of biodiversity through non-native flora or fauna,

We would argue that the concern is invalid, as "sustain" connotes something more than temporary. Also, the clause you quote says nothing about "native" flora and fauna.

Distressed that this definition also fails to take into account that it is irrelevant whether or not an area is unsafe for population when no population is actually present in that area, or that it is sometimes necessary to permanently make an area unsafe for population in order to safely dispose of dangerous materials, such as nuclear waste,

Is it really "irrelevant"? It seems perfectly relevant when you consider that if it did entirely exempt areas without population, companies would just drive their truckloads of pollutants to outside city limits and push the lift lever...

Perhaps you mean that it is inappropriate to make the standards for populated areas and unpopulated areas exactly the same. That is a different argument than the argument that all pollution standards are irrelevant to unpopulated areas.

EDIT: We misread your usage of "irrelevant". Still, we stand by our larger point that you seem to be taking an extreme position (that no pollution regulations should be present required for unpopulated areas, which we might broadly interpret as areas without people in line of sight). It seems a more reasonable argument that different pollution regulations should govern areas with no population. Although we are not sure we agree, it at least would seem like a stance that has more appeal.
/EDIT

The second argument about nuclear waste is more convincing.

Perplexed that the target resolution only appears to require that member nations "adapt" (as opposed to "adopt") thresholds of environmental quality,

Typos alone do not a repeal make, in our opinion. This typo (you may argue) is egregious, especially in light of later arguments you make. We feel that if that is the case, this clause should be moved closer to your clauses about #281, 3(iv) and 4(i), (ii). Otherwise, isolated it seems pedantic.

Further noting that the target resolution defines "pollution" as "chemical and energy contaminants that cause adverse change in the environment or the health of a population",

Dismayed by the lack of clarity as to what exactly constitutes an "energy contaminant" or an "adverse change in the environment or the health of a population", as well as the lack of any distinction between "pollution" and "industrial pollution" even though both terms are used throughout the resolution,

This seems excessive. Presumably, if the proposal had defined these terms, you might argue that it hadn't defined the terms used in those definitions...and on and on. This alone is not a valid argument for repeal in our eyes, unless it is especially and excessively vague or circular. We do not feel that you make a good argument for excess.

Confused by the target resolution's contradictory mandates with respect to pollution reduction targets, for which implementation is merely "recommended" in clause 3(iv) yet apparently required in clauses 4(i) and 4(ii),

May be a valid contradiction, but we would add that this discrepancy could be a fruitful area for compliance role-play.

Alarmed by the lack of an appeals process or even any clearly established criteria for the World Assembly Science Program's determination of pollution reduction targets, which - assuming the implementation of pollution targets is actually required - allows the Program to arbitrarily restrict industries in World Assembly member nations without any accountability,

Actually we see clause 3 as outlining a process that involves working together. We infer (perhaps we are alone in this) that this involves both sides having say on things. The appeals process would then be circumscribed in 3v.

~~~~~~

In our opinion this repeal text lacks a clear articulation of why a repeal is imminently required. There are the beginnings of some good arguments, but we feel that repeal proposals that point to spelling mistakes or "lack of clarity" in "definitions" are getting old hat with the electorate. Perhaps that's just us. We think the electorate is catching on to the fact that it is easy to be an armchair quarterback and hard to throw a pass in a real game (OOC: apparently my chipmunk delegation is a fan of American Football???). As such repeal texts that just moan about little imperfections in the original resolution are getting less and less popular.

-BH

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I've been directed by my government to publicize its point-by-point analysis of this draft.

Regretting that the flaws present in GAR #281, "Industrial Pollution Control", necessitate its repeal,

Starting out by assuming the conclusion as a premise is counterproductive at best. At minimum it makes any following argument seem trumped up to support a pre-determined outcome whether that outcome is ultimately justified or not. In this case it may be justified; but that certainly hasn't been established yet.

Remarking that the target resolution's general lack of clarity makes it very difficult for member nations to discern their obligations under the resolution,

That seems disingenuous. Section 4 (and only Section 4) deliberately and specifically lists five things which member nations are required to do to be in compliance with this act, while not micromanaging the exact manner in which they must do them. If it were more exact, I have no doubt that section would be derided as mandating too much WA interference within member nations; yet as is it's somehow not clear enough in describing member nations' obligations. It seems clear enough to us; I'd be happy to converse with any of my esteemed colleagues regarding the steps we are taking to ensure our regulations are in compliance with this act.

(To be fair, the already strong environmental regulation of industry in Sierra Lyricalia renders the compliance initiative undoubtedly easier for us than it will be for many nations; in this regard we are prepared to offer aid programs and consultation teams to any nation requesting such aid or advice in upgrading its regulatory regime or industrial waste disposal infrastructure; and to be a substantial source of finance for any WASP funds that may be devoted to such aid).

Noting the target resolution defines "threshold of environmental quality" as "the level of environmental degradation beyond which an area is deemed unsafe for population or unable to sustain natural flora and fauna",

]Concerned that this definition does not distinguish between areas that are permanently as opposed to only temporarily unable to sustain native flora or fauna, in addition to excluding areas that are able to sustain an equivalent level of biodiversity through non-native flora or fauna,

We must concur that including the word "natural" in this section without definition was perhaps not the wisest choice. However, even in the worst case scenario for how it is to be interpreted, the results are hardly to be feared. "Natural" is not the same thing as "native," so we are unable to see how transplanted or even invasive life forms are prohibited from being counted in the threshold of environmental quality. And even interpreting "natural" at its most zealous and overbearing level of enforcement, we find that it is unacceptable to replace a biome's flora and fauna with genetically engineered or robotic replacements and still be in compliance; but we see this sort of thing as highly unlikely even if allowed.

Distressed that this definition also fails to take into account that it is irrelevant whether or not an area is unsafe for population when no population is actually present in that area, or that it is sometimes necessary to permanently make an area unsafe for population in order to safely dispose of dangerous materials, such as nuclear waste,

These allegations are not proven facts. It is in fact quite relevant whether an unpopulated area is unsafe or contains pollution, for a number of reasons. Firstly, some people may in the future settle or squat on the area; secondly, municipal water systems may expand into the unpopulated area to pump new sources of water for their citizens, or pollutants in the unpopulated area may drip, drift, osmose, or otherwise travel into areas that are populated; thirdly, animals may transport pollutants away from the unpopulated area and contaminate other areas.

Speaking of nuclear waste, is it really the intention of any WA member state to convert whole areas to wasteland for the disposal of pollutants? Why would anyone seek to store them under any scheme other than a sealed facility such as bunkers or salt mines? We have no problem prohibiting nations from establishing such "sacrifice zones" when technology exists to store nuclear and other toxic wastes relatively safely, rather than dumping them on the ground and posting "keep out" signs.

Perplexed that the target resolution only appears to require that member nations "adapt" (as opposed to "adopt") thresholds of environmental quality,

My colleague from Pacifist Chipmunks addressed this quite adequately. It's a flaw, but it's also entirely clear from context what is required.

Further noting that the target resolution defines "pollution" as "chemical and energy contaminants that cause adverse change in the environment or the health of a population",

Dismayed by the lack of clarity as to what exactly constitutes an "energy contaminant" or an "adverse change in the environment or the health of a population", as well as the lack of any distinction between "pollution" and "industrial pollution" even though both terms are used throughout the resolution,

The lack of definition of "energy contaminant" is a real concern, since this phrase is not widely enough used to be covered by Reasonable Nation Theory. We're assuming for the moment that it means radioactive materials, in contradistinction to chemical contaminants; though most such elements cause injury and poisoning through both means (for example, plutonium is radioactive; but it is also a highly toxic heavy metal, and even a hypothetical stable isotope of it would still be harmful if ingested). Definition would have been helpful; but we don't believe this weakness cripples the resolution.

"Adverse change..." is obviously straightforward and can't possibly be held up as an example of "lack of clarity." Plain reading is more than sufficient.

It's clear by reading Sections 3 and 4 that WASP's role is intended to advise mainly (though not exclusively) on pollution whose source is industrial (which tends to be point-source pollution, though the act doesn't specifically say so), while member nations are mandated to regulate all sources of pollution. This is actually the only reasonable way to conduct matters. The WA agency is best qualified to render data about industrial sources, which are documented and able to be not only quantified but also scientifically analyzed and generalized; while member nations are the ones best able to decide precisely how to reduce non-point source pollution (such as auto emissions, home heating furnaces, underdeveloped sewage disposal regimes, and the like) that stems from their own citizens' ordinary activities - the area in which WA regulation would be least welcome and for the most part least helpful.

It would be nice if the resolution actually spelled this out, but we are prepared to offer amici curiae briefs in support of this interpretation before the General Assembly's legal inference body.

Confused by the target resolution's contradictory mandates with respect to pollution reduction targets, for which implementation is merely "recommended" in clause 3(iv) yet apparently required in clauses 4(i) and 4(ii),

The WASP does the recommending; member nations are required to do the reducing. Surely you wouldn't want the WASP to have total control over member nations' laws and economies? It's clearly spelled out that the WASP "work[s] with member nations" [emphasis mine] to come up with the pollution reduction recommendations; it is then the member nation's responsibility to try to reach those goals. We note that without a penalty listed for failure to comply in a timely fashion, this act does not have the sort of far-reaching teeth that some nations are apparently worried about.

Alarmed by the lack of an appeals process or even any clearly established criteria for the World Assembly Science Program's determination of pollution reduction targets, which - assuming the implementation of pollution targets is actually required - allows the Program to arbitrarily restrict industries in World Assembly member nations without any accountability,

Nothing in the act appears to give the WASP this kind of power. It is only instructed to come up with the numbers - member nations are directed to use those numbers, but since there is no enforcement regime we are hard pressed to come up with a way in which this could actually adversely affect any member nation, even assuming that the WASP is composed of Luddite zealots (which we find fairly unlikely).

In conclusion, while the target resolution does contain a few flaws, we feel these are minor as well as largely the result of linguistic idiosyncracy. In addition, the lack of enforcement power given to the WASP or any other body to ensure compliance among member nations means they will not be unduly burdened if unable or unwilling to enact or enforce environmental regulations on an expedited basis. While we sympathize with the desire not to have one's economic lifeblood dammed up by red tape, the tone of this repeal (or at least of the debate surrounding it) is more alarmist than the language of the target resolution warrants even under the worst possible interpretation.

Thanks for your attention.

[Auralia]

We dislike the idea that mere "flaws" necessitate a repeal.

We disagree. There is no reason to keep flawed legislation on the books. It should always be repealed (and replaced if necessary).

All WA resolutions lack clarity, seeing as the gnomes limit us to only a certain number of characters. Presumably, you mean to argue that the text has a specific and irresponsible lack of clarity.

I agree with you to some extent. I'll change "lack of clarity" to "substantial lack of clarity".

We would argue that the concern is invalid, as "sustain" connotes something more than temporary.

We disagree. The word "sustain" means nothing more than "To supply with necessities or nourishment; provide for." If the resolution had intended to distinguish between temporary and permanent inability to sustain native flora and fauna, it should have said so.

Also, the clause you quote says nothing about "native" flora and fauna.

In this context, "natural" clearly means "native" rather than "not artificial".

Is it really "irrelevant"? It seems perfectly relevant when you consider that if it did entirely exempt areas without population, companies would just drive their truckloads of pollutants to outside city limits and push the lift lever...

Perhaps you mean that it is inappropriate to make the standards for populated areas and unpopulated areas exactly the same. That is a different argument than the argument that all pollution standards are irrelevant to unpopulated areas.

Well, I wouldn't consider an area just outside city limits to be unpopulated, per se, but I see your point. I'll change "irrelevant" to "limited relevance".

Typos alone do not a repeal make, in our opinion. This typo (you may argue) is egregious, especially in light of later arguments you make. We feel that if that is the case, this clause should be moved closer to your clauses about #281, 3(iv) and 4(i), (ii). Otherwise, isolated it seems pedantic.

This particular typo would be sufficient for a repeal all on its own. We feel that the clause's position within the document is appropriate, and so we do not intend to move it.

This seems excessive. Presumably, if the proposal had defined these terms, you might argue that it hadn't defined the terms used in those definitions...and on and on.

I disagree. "Energy contaminant" sounds like New Age woo at first glance; it should be defined. The term "adverse change" is vague and over-broad. Finally, the proposal cannot apply different regulations to two things (normal pollution and industrial pollution) without actually explaining what the difference between those two things are.

May be a valid contradiction, but we would add that this discrepancy could be a fruitful area for compliance role-play.

Seriously?

Actually we see clause 3 as outlining a process that involves working together. We infer (perhaps we are alone in this) that this involves both sides having say on things. The appeals process would then be circumscribed in 3v.

Ultimately, per clause 4(i), member nations are required to "implement[] pollution reduction targets recommended by WASP." That doesn't sound like a very open, collaborative process.