[DRAFT]Regulating waste incineration

[Apabeossie]

This is my first attempt at writing a (non-terrible) resolution, and while I tried to keep the quality best, there will be obviously flaws and things that need to be improved. Feedback, opinions, suggestions, all will be appreciated.

Regulating waste incineration

Category: Enviromental | Industry Affected: All Businesses - Mild

---

The General Assembly,

Recognizing that incineration can reduce waste volume and generate energy;

Concerned that incinerating waste releases toxic chemicals, heavy metals, and greenhouse gases into the air, which causes major health problems and contributes to climate change;

Understanding the need to regulate the process of incinerating waste to reduce environmental and public health impacts;

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
a. "waste incineration" as the process of burning waste,
b. "bottom ash" as ash left over from incineration;
2. Mandates:
a. Member states to install effective filters on chimneys to minimise the amount of fine particles being released into the atmosphere;
b. Incinerator plants measure the amount of pollutants and chemicals being released and implement effective ways to reduce emissions;
c. Bottom Ash should be used after assessing possible risks or be disposed of safely;
3. Obligates that other eco-friendly ways of managing waste, including recycling, reusing and composting, must be considered before incinerating waste;
4. Requires:
a. explicit permission from locals to construct an incinerator near the area;
b. incinerators older than 30 years stop operating and either close or be replaced;
5. Encourages member nations to phase out or discontinue incineration and use alternative, more eco-friendly methods as a way to manage waste.

[Honeydewistania]

30 years

Seems a little arbitrary.

[list]s are your friend, by the way.

toxic chemicals, heavy metals, and greenhouse gases

FTFY

Member states to install effective filters to minimise the amount of fine particles being released into the atmosphere;

Install them where?

Incinerator plants to measure the amount of pollutants and chemicals being released and create implement effective ways to reduce emissions;

FTFY

explicit permission from locals to construct an incinerator near the area;

Who counts as a local? People living in the nearest town, people living in the province, the indigenous people etc?

[Imperium Anglorum]

4. Requires:
a. explicit permission from locals to construct an incinerator near the area;

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. I'll ignore the locals question for now. This is an easy way to get no incinerators. Why would any group of locals ever agree to construct an incinerator near their area? Oh, wait!

Such groups do exist. But they are only those who need the jobs. So rubbish almost inevitably ends up being transported and processed in the poorest and most disadvantaged neighbourhoods. If we are actually "concerned that incinerating waste releases toxic chemicals, heavy metal, and greenhouse gases into the air, which causes major health problems", we ought not only to care about the wealthy and advantaged.

Also, the word "should" does not impute a mandate. Use 'must'.

[Apabeossie]

30 years

Seems a little arbitrary.

[list]s are your friend, by the way.

25~30 years is the lifespan of an incinerator.

Also how can lists help me?

Who counts as a local? People living in the nearest town, people living in the province, the indigenous people etc?

Ah, we might need to define a radius or a range. Is there any suggestions?

Also did with the minor changes.

4. Requires:
a. explicit permission from locals to construct an incinerator near the area;

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. I'll ignore the locals question for now. This is an easy way to get no incinerators. Why would any group of locals ever agree to construct an incinerator near their area? Oh, wait!

Such groups do exist. But they are only those who need the jobs. So rubbish almost inevitably ends up being transported and processed in the poorest and most disadvantaged neighbourhoods. If we are actually "concerned that incinerating waste releases toxic chemicals, heavy metal, and greenhouse gases into the air, which causes major health problems", we ought not only to care about the wealthy and advantaged.

Also, the word "should" does not impute a mandate. Use 'must'.

Yeah. That happens...
So the answer is to ban incinerators completely? Is there any better way to reduce wealth injustice in incinerators? I'm really curious.

[Honeydewistania]

Code: Select all

[list=1][*]Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:[list=a]
[*]"waste incineration" as the process of burning waste,
[*]"bottom ash" as ash left over from incineration;[/list]
[*]Mandates:[list=a]
[*]Member states to install effective filters on chimneys to minimise the amount of fine particles being released into the atmosphere;
[*]Incinerator plants measure the amount of pollutants and chemicals being released and implement effective ways to reduce emissions;
[*]Bottom Ash should be used after assessing possible risks or be disposed of safely;[/list]
[*]Obligates that other eco-friendly ways of managing waste, including recycling, reusing and composting, must be considered before incinerating waste;
[*]Requires:[list=a]
[*]explicit permission from locals to construct an incinerator near the area;
[*]incinerators older than 30 years stop operating and either close or be replaced;[/list]
[*]Encourages member nations to phase out or discontinue incineration and use alternative, more eco-friendly methods as a way to manage waste.[/list]

Becomes

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   1. "waste incineration" as the process of burning waste,
   2. "bottom ash" as ash left over from incineration;
2. Mandates:
   1. Member states to install effective filters on chimneys to minimise the amount of fine particles being released into the atmosphere;
   2. Incinerator plants measure the amount of pollutants and chemicals being released and implement effective ways to reduce emissions;
   3. Bottom Ash should be used after assessing possible risks or be disposed of safely;
3. Obligates that other eco-friendly ways of managing waste, including recycling, reusing and composting, must be considered before incinerating waste;
4. Requires:
   1. explicit permission from locals to construct an incinerator near the area;
   2. incinerators older than 30 years stop operating and either close or be replaced;
5. Encourages member nations to phase out or discontinue incineration and use alternative, more eco-friendly methods as a way to manage waste.

Edit:

So the answer is to ban incinerators completely? Is there any better way to reduce wealth injustice in incinerators? I'm really curious.

Banning incineration will contradict GA#511, which explicitly permits member nations to explore incinerating waste if recycling is worse.

Also, 25-30 years is arbitrary because for example some nations may have incinerators that should only run for one year at a time, or there are more advanced nations with 100 year incinerators. While these cases are unlikely enforcing such limits are problematic, and as such you should just put something along the lines of ‘they shouldn’t use incinerators for a period of time such that they become unsafe’

[Araraukar]

IC: "Given the already existing resolutions about air pollution, what is the international function of this proposal? Do you think nations are unable to figure out the most basic regulations themselves? Also, please define "waste" for me? Not in the proposal, but in your own words. Is clean paper "waste"? Wood "waste" left over from felling trees? Destroying dangerous goods in a furnace? And what counts as an incinerator? A wood stove? A barbecue grill? House-heating fireplace? Industrial incinerator? You need to be far more specific with this, or you might ban the only way a poor household in some hellhole nation has to cook food."

OOC: 2.c. currently says "Bottom Ash should be used after assessing possible risks or be disposed of safely" but it doesn't say what it should be used on, or what kind of risks it's talking about. It also has a nasty case of Capitalizing Nouns, which the definition doesn't do, so neither should the clause using the defined term.