by Auralia » Sat Jan 25, 2014 12:41 pm
by The Dark Star Republic » Sat Jan 25, 2014 12:54 pm
by The Black Hat Guy » Sat Jan 25, 2014 1:03 pm
by Aboras » Sat Jan 25, 2014 1:06 pm
by Auralia » Sat Jan 25, 2014 1:17 pm
The Dark Star Republic wrote:"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.
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 Dark Star Republic wrote:"There is also, glaringly, the failure to define what actually constitutes 'industrial pollution', as opposed to all 'pollution'.
by Chester Pearson » Sat Jan 25, 2014 1:48 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
by The League of Brasses » Sat Jan 25, 2014 2:07 pm
by Aboras » Sat Jan 25, 2014 2:08 pm
The League of Brasses wrote: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.
by Normlpeople » Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:10 am
by The Dourian Embassy » Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:56 am
by Bananaistan » Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:57 am
by Bears Armed » Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:27 am
by Moronist Decisions » Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:57 am
by United industrial » Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:23 am
by Araraukar » Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:58 am
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Normlpeople » Wed Jan 29, 2014 12:45 am
by Hirota » Wed Jan 29, 2014 5:15 am
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Jan 29, 2014 7:41 am
by The Dark Star Republic » Wed Jan 29, 2014 4:38 pm
by Pacifist Chipmunks » Wed Jan 29, 2014 5:17 pm
Auralia wrote:Regretting that the flaws present in GAR #281, "Industrial Pollution Control", necessitate its repeal,
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.Remarking that the target resolution's general lack of clarity makes it very difficult for member nations to discern their obligations under the resolution,
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.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,
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,
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.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,
by Sierra Lyricalia » Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:14 pm
Auralia wrote:Regretting that the flaws present in GAR #281, "Industrial Pollution Control", necessitate its repeal,
Remarking that the target resolution's general 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, in addition to excluding 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 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,
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,
by Auralia » Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:03 am
Pacifist Chipmunks wrote:We dislike the idea that mere "flaws" necessitate a repeal.
Pacifist Chipmunks wrote: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.
Pacifist Chipmunks wrote:We would argue that the concern is invalid, as "sustain" connotes something more than temporary.
Pacifist Chipmunks wrote:Also, the clause you quote says nothing about "native" flora and fauna.
Pacifist Chipmunks wrote: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.
Pacifist Chipmunks wrote: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.
Pacifist Chipmunks wrote: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.
Pacifist Chipmunks wrote:May be a valid contradiction, but we would add that this discrepancy could be a fruitful area for compliance role-play.
Pacifist Chipmunks wrote: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.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement