[PASSED] Reducing Microplastics

[Scalizagasti]

This proposal has now been submitted.

Reducing Microplastics
Environment | All businesses, Strong

---

The General Assembly,

Noting that microplastics can cause adverse health effects to organic life, both physically and chemically,

Concerned by the increasing prevalence of microplastics in water sources, the ground, food, and the atmosphere, especially considering the ability of said microplastics to remain in those environments for centuries,

Recognizing the purposeful and unnecessary inclusion of microplastics in many products, such as plastic microbeads in cosmetics,

Further recognizing that microplastics are released into the environment unintentionally through microfibre textiles, the breakdown of regular plastics, and more,

Desiring a targeted resolution to prevent the further proliferation of microplastics in the environment to protect health, safety, and the ecosystem alike,

Hereby:

1. Defines “microplastics” as plastics and plastic fragments smaller than 5 millimeters in diameter along the longest length of the particle, which cannot fully biodegrade in water,
   
   
2. Tasks the WA Scientific Programme (WASP) with
   
   
   1. Collecting microplastic pollution data in the atmosphere and bodies of water outside of national borders,
      
      
   2. Aggregating and analyzing microplastic pollution data using information gathered by and shared between both member states and WASP itself,
      
      
   3. Research into the most effective measures that member states, non-governmental organizations, and individuals can take to reduce microplastic pollution,
      
      
   4. Communicating these measures to both governments and other non-governmental organizations,
      
      
   5. Coordinating further research into microplastic pollution with member states upon request,
3. Prohibits the manufacturing and sale of products that contain purposefully-added microplastic particles with an exception for
   
   
   1. Medication and other medical products for use inside the body,
      
      
   2. Plastic nurdles that will be turned into larger plastics during the manufacturing/production of plastics,
4. Mandates that member states:
   
   
   1. Ensure that wastewater treatment plants include processes that are known to significantly reduce microplastic concentrations in water during operation based on WASP recommendations and their own internal research, such as membrane bioreactor treating and rapid sand filtering,
      
      
   2. Implement the most effective measures to combat other known sources of microplastic runoff into the environment based on WASP recommendations and their own internal research, such as mandating filtration in laundry machines to reduce runoff from synthetic fibre clothing,
      
      
   3. Establish legal frameworks that plastic producers and manufacturers must follow to minimize accidental nurdle pollution, reduce the risk of nurdle spills, and mitigate the effects of spills when they do occur,
      
      
   4. Organize educational campaigns and curricula reforms to inform their citizens of the prevalence of microplastics and ways in which individuals can alter consumer behaviour to reduce microplastic pollution,
      
      
   5. Track microplastic pollution within their borders to the best of their ability, sharing the gathered data with WASP and using it wherever possible to inform future policy decisions,
5. Urges member states to take additional steps to reduce the general consumption of non-biodegradable plastic through measures including, but not limited to:
   
   
   1. Preventing wasteful plastic packaging (e.g. ‘double packaging’),
      
      
   2. Eliminating single-use plastics where feasible,
      
      
   3. Researching and developing plastics which can safely biodegrade in water without leaving toxic remains or turning into microplastics,
      
      
   4. Promoting other biodegradable alternatives to plastic, and
      
      
   5. Promoting and expanding the recycling of products which contain plastics in part or in whole.

[Scalizagasti]

OOC: Before anyone comments on the 5 mm definition being random/arbitrary, the reason I chose 5 mm for defining microplastics is because there is real life precedent for it. The US, EU, UN, and basically all existing scientific literature on the subject use 5 mm as the standard for microplastics.

Sources:
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/microplastics.html
https://echa.europa.eu/hot-topics/microplastics
https://www.unenvironment.org/resources ... roplastics

---

Reducing Microplastics
Environment | All businesses, Strong

---

The General Assembly,

Noting that microplastics can cause adverse health effects to organic life, both physically and chemically,

Concerned by the increasing prevalence of microplastics in water sources, the ground, food, and the atmosphere, especially considering the ability of said microplastics to remain in those environments for centuries,

Recognizing the purposeful inclusion of microplastics in many products, such as plastic microbeads in cosmetics,

Further recognizing that microplastics are released into the environment unintentionally through microfibre textiles, the breakdown of regular plastics, and more,

Desiring a targeted resolution to prevent the further proliferation of microplastics in the environment to protect health, safety, and the ecosystem alike,

Hereby:

1. Defines “microplastics” as plastics and plastic fragments smaller than 5 mm in diameter,

2. Prohibits the manufacturing and sale of products that contain plastic microbeads,

3. Mandates wastewater treatment plants in member states to include processes that are known to significantly reduce microplastic concentrations, such as membrane bioreactor treating and rapid sand filtering,

4. Requires member states to implement effective measures to combat known sources of microplastic runoff into water or the atmosphere, such as mandating filtration in laundry machines to reduce microplastic runoff from synthetic fibre clothing,

5. Requires member states to track microplastic pollution in their borders, and use the gathered data wherever possible to inform future policy decisions,

6. Tasks member states with organizing educational campaigns to inform their citizens of the prevalence of microplastics and ways in which individuals can alter consumer behaviour to reduce microplastic pollution,

7. Urges member states to take additional steps to reduce consumption of non-biodegradable plastic through measures including, but not limited to:

1. Preventing wasteful plastic packaging (e.g. ‘double packaging’),
   
2. Eliminating single-use plastics where feasible, and
   
3. Promoting biodegradable alternatives to plastic.

Reducing Microplastics
Environment | All businesses, Strong

---

The General Assembly,

Noting that microplastics can cause adverse health effects to organic life, both physically and chemically,

Concerned by the increasing prevalence of microplastics in water sources, the ground, food, and the atmosphere, especially considering the ability of said microplastics to remain in those environments for centuries,

Recognizing the purposeful inclusion of microplastics in many products, such as plastic microbeads in cosmetics,

Further recognizing that microplastics are released into the environment unintentionally through microfibre textiles, the breakdown of regular plastics, and more,

Desiring a targeted resolution to prevent the further proliferation of microplastics in the environment to protect health, safety, and the ecosystem alike,

Hereby:

1. For the purpose of this resolution, defines
   
   
   1. “microplastics” as plastics and plastic fragments smaller than 5 millimeters in diameter,
      
      
   2. "plastic microbeads" as manufactured microplastic particles purposefully added in certain products like cosmetics,
2. Prohibits the manufacturing and sale of products that contain plastic microbeads,
   
   
3. Mandates that member states:
   
   
   1. Ensure that wastewater treatment plants include processes that are known to significantly reduce microplastic concentrations, such as membrane bioreactor treating and rapid sand filtering,
      
      
   2. Implement effective measures to combat known sources of microplastic runoff into ground water or the atmosphere, such as mandating filtration in laundry machines to reduce microplastic runoff from synthetic fibre clothing,
      
      
   3. Track microplastic pollution in their borders, and use the gathered data wherever possible to inform future policy decisions,
      
      
   4. Organize educational campaigns to inform their citizens of the prevalence of microplastics and ways in which individuals can alter consumer behaviour to reduce microplastic pollution,
4. Urges member states to take additional steps to reduce consumption of non-biodegradable plastic through measures including, but not limited to:
   
   
   1. Preventing wasteful plastic packaging (e.g. ‘double packaging’),
      
      
   2. Eliminating single-use plastics where feasible, and
      
      
   3. Promoting biodegradable alternatives to plastic.

Reducing Microplastics
Environment | All businesses, Strong

---

The General Assembly,

Noting that microplastics can cause adverse health effects to organic life, both physically and chemically,

Concerned by the increasing prevalence of microplastics in water sources, the ground, food, and the atmosphere, especially considering the ability of said microplastics to remain in those environments for centuries,

Recognizing the purposeful inclusion of microplastics in many products, such as plastic microbeads in cosmetics,

Further recognizing that microplastics are released into the environment unintentionally through microfibre textiles, the breakdown of regular plastics, and more,

Desiring a targeted resolution to prevent the further proliferation of microplastics in the environment to protect health, safety, and the ecosystem alike,

Hereby:

1. Defines “microplastics” as plastics and plastic fragments smaller than 5 millimeters in diameter,
   
   
2. Tasks the International Bureau of Water Safety (IBWS) with
   
   
   1. Researching and analyzing data for microplastic pollution in water,
      
      
   2. Formulating and recommending different measures that member states, non-governmental organizations, and individuals can take to reduce microplastic pollution in an effective way,
   
   
3. Prohibits the manufacturing and sale of products that contain microbeads (purposefully-added microplastic particles),
   
   
4. Mandates that member states:
   
   
   1. Ensure that wastewater treatment plants include processes that are known to significantly reduce microplastic concentrations in water during operation, such as membrane bioreactor treating and rapid sand filtering,
      
      
   2. Implement effective measures to combat known sources of microplastic runoff into the environment based on recommendations by the IBWS and their own internal research, such as mandating filtration in laundry machines to reduce microplastic runoff from synthetic fibre clothing,
      
      
   3. Track microplastic pollution in their borders, and use the gathered data wherever possible to inform future policy decisions,
      
      
   4. Organize educational campaigns to inform their citizens of the prevalence of microplastics and ways in which individuals can alter consumer behaviour to reduce microplastic pollution,
5. Urges member states to take additional steps to reduce consumption of non-biodegradable plastic through measures including, but not limited to:
   
   
   1. Preventing wasteful plastic packaging (e.g. ‘double packaging’),
      
      
   2. Eliminating single-use plastics where feasible, and
      
      
   3. Promoting biodegradable alternatives to plastic.

Reducing Microplastics
Environment | All businesses, Strong

---

The General Assembly,

Noting that microplastics can cause adverse health effects to organic life, both physically and chemically,

Concerned by the increasing prevalence of microplastics in water sources, the ground, food, and the atmosphere, especially considering the ability of said microplastics to remain in those environments for centuries,

Recognizing the purposeful inclusion of microplastics in many products, such as plastic microbeads in cosmetics,

Further recognizing that microplastics are released into the environment unintentionally through microfibre textiles, the breakdown of regular plastics, and more,

Desiring a targeted resolution to prevent the further proliferation of microplastics in the environment to protect health, safety, and the ecosystem alike,

Hereby:

1. Defines “microplastics” as plastics and plastic fragments smaller than 5 millimeters in diameter,
   
   
2. Tasks the WA Scientific Programme (WASP) with
   
   
   1. Tracking and analyzing microplastic pollution data in major water bodies and the atmosphere,
      
      
   2. Research into the most effective measures that member states, non-governmental organizations, and individuals can take to reduce microplastic pollution,
      
      
   3. Coordinating further research into microplastic pollution with member states and sharing information between government bodies,
3. Prohibits the manufacturing and sale of products that contain purposefully-added microplastic particles,
   
   
4. Mandates that member states:
   
   
   1. Ensure that wastewater treatment plants include processes that are known to significantly reduce microplastic concentrations in water during operation based on WASP recommendations, such as membrane bioreactor treating and rapid sand filtering,
      
      
   2. Implement the most effective measures to combat other known sources of microplastic runoff into the environment based on WASP recommendations and their own internal research, such as mandating filtration in laundry machines to reduce runoff from synthetic fibre clothing,
      
      
   3. Track microplastic pollution in their borders, and use the gathered data wherever possible to inform future policy decisions,
      
      
   4. Organize educational campaigns to inform their citizens of the prevalence of microplastics and ways in which individuals can alter consumer behaviour to reduce microplastic pollution,
5. Urges member states to take additional steps to reduce the general consumption of non-biodegradable plastic through measures including, but not limited to:
   
   
   1. Preventing wasteful plastic packaging (e.g. ‘double packaging’),
      
      
   2. Eliminating single-use plastics where feasible, and
      
      
   3. Promoting biodegradable alternatives to plastic.

Reducing Microplastics
Environment | All businesses, Strong

---

The General Assembly,

Noting that microplastics can cause adverse health effects to organic life, both physically and chemically,

Concerned by the increasing prevalence of microplastics in water sources, the ground, food, and the atmosphere, especially considering the ability of said microplastics to remain in those environments for centuries,

Recognizing the purposeful inclusion of microplastics in many products, such as plastic microbeads in cosmetics,

Further recognizing that microplastics are released into the environment unintentionally through microfibre textiles, the breakdown of regular plastics, and more,

Desiring a targeted resolution to prevent the further proliferation of microplastics in the environment to protect health, safety, and the ecosystem alike,

Hereby:

1. Defines “microplastics” as plastics and plastic fragments smaller than 5 millimeters in diameter along the longest length of the particle, which cannot fully biodegrade in water,
   
   
2. Tasks the WA Scientific Programme (WASP) with
   
   
   1. Tracking and analyzing microplastic pollution in major water bodies and the atmosphere using data gathered by both member states and WASP itself,
      
      
   2. Research into the most effective measures that member states, non-governmental organizations, and individuals can take to reduce microplastic pollution,
      
      
   3. Communicating these measures to both governments and other non-governmental organizations,
      
      
   4. Coordinating further research into microplastic pollution with member states upon request and sharing information between government bodies,
3. Prohibits the manufacturing and sale of products that contain purposefully-added microplastic particles with an exception for
   
   
   1. Medication and other medical products,
      
      
   2. Plastic nurdles that will be turned into larger plastics during the manufacturing/production of plastics,
4. Mandates that member states:
   
   
   1. Ensure that wastewater treatment plants include processes that are known to significantly reduce microplastic concentrations in water during operation based on WASP recommendations and their own internal research, such as membrane bioreactor treating and rapid sand filtering,
      
      
   2. Implement the most effective measures to combat other known sources of microplastic runoff into the environment based on WASP recommendations and their own internal research, such as mandating filtration in laundry machines to reduce runoff from synthetic fibre clothing,
      
      
   3. Track microplastic pollution within their borders to the best of their ability, sharing the gathered data with WASP and using it wherever possible to inform future policy decisions,
      
      
   4. Organize educational campaigns and curricula reforms to inform their citizens of the prevalence of microplastics and ways in which individuals can alter consumer behaviour to reduce microplastic pollution,
      
      
   5. Establish legal frameworks that plastic producers and manufacturers must follow to minimize accidental nurdle pollution, reduce the risk of nurdle spills, and mitigate the effects of spills when they do occur,
5. Urges member states to take additional steps to reduce the general consumption of non-biodegradable plastic through measures including, but not limited to:
   
   
   1. Preventing wasteful plastic packaging (e.g. ‘double packaging’),
      
      
   2. Eliminating single-use plastics where feasible,
      
      
   3. Researching and developing plastics which can safely biodegrade in water without leaving toxic remains or turning into microplastics,
      
      
   4. Promoting other biodegradable alternatives to plastic, and
      
      
   5. Promoting and expanding the recycling of products which contain plastics in part or in whole.

[Tinhampton]

Is this a response to Ban on microplastics in cosmetics?

I note that Article 2 targets "plastic microbeads" rather than "microplastics."

[Imperium Anglorum]

I note that Article 2 targets "plastic microbeads" rather than "microplastics."

Some small plastic fragments are produced (eg plastic microbeads). Some of such fragments are created (eg when you saw through a water bottle).

[Scalizagasti]

Is this a response to Ban on microplastics in cosmetics?

I note that Article 2 targets "plastic microbeads" rather than "microplastics."

OOC

No, I genuinely had no idea that this was posted. I began drafting this about two weeks ago, there are others who can back this up.

That being said, I do believe this resolution is superior to the one that has been submitted. This one focuses on many different sources of microplastic pollution rather than solely microbeads. Furthermore Ban on Microplastics in Cosmetics doesn't set a minimum standard of definition which is pretty important -- after all, banning microplastics smaller than 1 nm is far different than 5 mm.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Will get back to this in detail later, but something you'll want to consider; using plastic in food packaging drastically reduces food waste, and I think there's at least one resolution out there requiring food waste reductions. Carefully read that and any addressing recycling to make sure you're not contradicting them.

As for the random number size, use the reasoning for the size (if you picked it from RL, there should be reasons available for it) instead of the random number size. Specific numeric values tend to create more issues than they're worth. (Especially as randomly produced pieces of microplastic are rarely perfect spheres, so there's plenty of leeway depending what dimension is measured of such a fragment.)

[Scalizagasti]

OOC: Will get back to this in detail later, but something you'll want to consider; using plastic in food packaging drastically reduces food waste, and I think there's at least one resolution out there requiring food waste reductions. Carefully read that and any addressing recycling to make sure you're not contradicting them.

As for the random number size, use the reasoning for the size (if you picked it from RL, there should be reasons available for it) instead of the random number size. Specific numeric values tend to create more issues than they're worth. (Especially as randomly produced pieces of microplastic are rarely perfect spheres, so there's plenty of leeway depending what dimension is measured of such a fragment.)

OOC: Thanks, I will consider that. I read through Ensuring Effectual Recycling and other environmental resolutions, but I will have to double check the food waste one.

For the 5 mm definition, there are a few reasons it's used IRL. One is that the first paper on microplastics used 5 mm as the parameter and literature thereafter followed suit. Furthermore, at around that size, there are more and more environmental impacts (that differ from macroplastics). One example is consumption by coral and plankton. Plastic beads that are used commercially (like in cosmetics) are usually that size or smaller. Lastly, smaller pieces of plastic can go through some filtration systems.

As an aside, I probably won't be working on this resolution until voting on Ban on microplastics in cosmetics finishes.

EDIT: finished reading through Reducing Food Waste, and I don't believe my draft contradicts it. Currently my draft urges nations to prevent "wasteful plastic packaging," and I do not believe that would eliminate food packaging that reduces spoilage.

[Scalizagasti]

(Bump)

[Doge Land]

Full support.

[Scalizagasti]

Created a second draft with some minor changes (thanks to Greater Cesnica for the advice). Most of it was formatting, although I also added a second definition for "plastic microbeads" just in case.

[Scalizagasti]

Bump. Will probably submit some time in March.

[Maowi]

OOC: I think this is a good aim and topic for a proposal, and I like your ideas!

However, I think you might want to rethink the way you approach it somewhat. You seem to have something of an over-reliance on examples, both in your definition of "plastic microbeads" as well as the first two sub-clauses under the "mandates" clause, which are probably the key parts of the proposal. I think these are likely to result in significant and presumably unintended limitations to the requirements you're putting in - when you take the examples out, you're not left with particularly strong language.

Perhaps a possible way of reworking these is to have a research thrust to it (perhaps bringing a WA committee to lead/coordinate such research), with a mandate that member states phase into using/requiring the use of the most effective measures to come out of that? Something like that could prevent you having to specify particular examples to get your point across and would potentially be more productive than forcing member states down one particular path.

For clarity/concision, you could consider removing the "plastic microbeads" definition and simply working it into clause 2, as that is the only time you use the term.

[Scalizagasti]

OOC: I think this is a good aim and topic for a proposal, and I like your ideas!

However, I think you might want to rethink the way you approach it somewhat. You seem to have something of an over-reliance on examples, both in your definition of "plastic microbeads" as well as the first two sub-clauses under the "mandates" clause, which are probably the key parts of the proposal. I think these are likely to result in significant and presumably unintended limitations to the requirements you're putting in - when you take the examples out, you're not left with particularly strong language.

Perhaps a possible way of reworking these is to have a research thrust to it (perhaps bringing a WA committee to lead/coordinate such research), with a mandate that member states phase into using/requiring the use of the most effective measures to come out of that? Something like that could prevent you having to specify particular examples to get your point across and would potentially be more productive than forcing member states down one particular path.

For clarity/concision, you could consider removing the "plastic microbeads" definition and simply working it into clause 2, as that is the only time you use the term.

Thank you for the feedback! I finally had some spare time to work on this resolution, so I tried to incorporate your recommendations. I tasked the IBWS with tracking microplastic pollution and formulating effective measures to reduce microplastic pollution. I reworded 4(a) and (b) a bit, and 4(b) now includes an explicit reference to the research committee. I also got rid of the microbead definition and put it in the microbead prohibition clause for concision's sake.

[Maowi]

OOC: Thanks for addressing my comments! I had a few more thoughts on it, but I think it's going in the right direction.

[*]Tasks the International Bureau of Water Safety (IBWS) with

1. Researching and analyzing data for microplastic pollution in water,

You could still strengthen the role of the committee in my opinion to really make the most of it - e.g. having it share its findings with member states, and coordinate and support separate research efforts where requested.

[*]Formulating and recommending different measures that member states, non-governmental organizations, and individuals can take to reduce microplastic pollution in an effective way,

I would recommend actively including a mandate that the committee organise research to find/develop the most effective methods or technologies to both reduce and prevent microplastic pollution. I think that's what you're going for more or less? The language just seems a little bit vague, maybe, and I think trying to give it more force would be beneficial.

[*]Prohibits the manufacturing and sale of products that contain microbeads (purposefully-added microplastic particles),

I think the phrasing here would be nicer/smoother if you just wrote "products that contain purposefully-added microplastic particles" (no need for the term "microbeads" to get you to what you want the clause to do).

[*]Ensure that wastewater treatment plants include processes that are known to significantly reduce microplastic concentrations in water during operation, such as membrane bioreactor treating and rapid sand filtering,

You could even mandate that member states put in place the methods determined by the committee to be the most effective, where it is possible for them to do so, just so that this clause is operating at full strength rather than simply requiring some sort of mostly unspecified improvement in dealing with microplastic pollution.

[Scalizagasti]

Full support on this.
Just a general question to throw out there for anyone, would this make https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=500208 illegal for duplication/contradiction since they are on similar topics?

With the exception of (maybe) your 2nd clause, I believe they should be distinct enough should my resolution be approved. Someone more experienced than I can probably say with greater certainty though. Your first clause deals with waste removal and your third clause prevents dumping in general, both of which are not covered in this resolution.

[Scalizagasti]

I have updated the draft based on Maowi's recommendations (thanks again for the help ).

Firstly, I switched the IBWS to the WASP. Since microplastics also exist in the atmosphere I thought it wouldn't make sense to have a committee based on water safety to deal with microplastics. I am also hesitant to introduce a new committee, so I decided to stick with WASP. I also fleshed out the duties of the committee to specify the most effective measures, as well as sharing & coordinating research with member states. Using measures deemed effective by WASP, member states can implement them to reduce microplastic runoff into the environment.

If nothing else comes up, I plan to submit this by the end of next week or beginning of the week after that.

[Calamari Lands]

Looks pretty good to me, but maybe you should elaborate the third clause a little more. It feels a lot more underdeveloped than the others and much more vague, which may cause problems. For example, how do you define "purposefully-added"? If you don't, that seems like a breeding ground for legal loopholes, at least in my opinion. Apart from that, though, it's a solid proposal.

[Scalizagasti]

Looks pretty good to me, but maybe you should elaborate the third clause a little more. It feels a lot more underdeveloped than the others and much more vague, which may cause problems. For example, how do you define "purposefully-added"? If you don't, that seems like a breeding ground for legal loopholes, at least in my opinion. Apart from that, though, it's a solid proposal.

I'm not sure I agree with that. "Purposefully-added" has a pretty unambiguous dictionary definition (non-accidentally adding something for a clear purpose) and is targeted towards products like cosmetics which contain plastic microbeads.

[Calamari Lands]

Looks pretty good to me, but maybe you should elaborate the third clause a little more. It feels a lot more underdeveloped than the others and much more vague, which may cause problems. For example, how do you define "purposefully-added"? If you don't, that seems like a breeding ground for legal loopholes, at least in my opinion. Apart from that, though, it's a solid proposal.

I'm not sure I agree with that. "Purposefully-added" has a pretty unambiguous dictionary definition (non-accidentally adding something for a clear purpose) and is targeted towards products like cosmetics which contain plastic microbeads.

Fair enough. I'd still clarify it in the resolution if I were you, but fair enough.

[Scalizagasti]

Bump. Will submit in 5-10 days(ish) if nothing major comes up.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Knew I forgot to reply to something last night... My apologies, life has recently conspired against time spent on NS.

The definition still uses a number instead of the reasoning for the number shown and doesn't say if the diameter is smallest or largest. Remember most microplastic fragments are irregularly sized.

You still have the committee doing the research instead of the member nations. Why? It reduces the strength effect of the text.

Clause 3 really fucks up some slow-release medications given the proposal doesn't define "plastics" as non-biodegradeable or the random size given in definition as the largest diameter of the fragment. I don't think that's intentional. Could also ban non-silk sutures for the same reason. And plastic-forming materials (plastic often goes from the producer of plastic to the manufacturer of plastic products as finer or coarser beads or powder).

4.a. would be better without the examples, I feel. Specific wastewater treatment methods (bioreactor? why would you want to poison a production unit with microplastics?) are going to be unfamiliar to the vast majority of voters and thus not really adding to the proposal.

4.b. only thing mentioning research done by member states. Are you trying to mandate they do some? And why filtrate laundry machines if you're doing it to all waste water anyway (4.a.)? Example there also feels like not adding to the proposal.

4.c. isn't WASP already doing that as per 2.a.? And I think you mean within their borders.

4.d. why educational campaigns instead of, you know, including the info into basic education? Campaigns are overlooked much easier than school classes you need to pass. And what good is it anyway when you're not giving nations a choice in applying the wastewater filtering and manufacturing stuff?

5.c. again creates an oxymoron because biodegradeable plastics are still plastics. Whole clause 5 seems a slightly disjointed step to begin with, given the rest of your clauses are to do with microplastics specifically. You're not even urging recycling, for example, though most nonbiodegradeable plastics can be recycled.

More generally, isn't wastewater treatment already mandated by a resolution? If its clauses do most of what you want done to wastewater, you could consider shifting from "All Businesses, Strong" to "Manufacturing" AoE.

[Brilliantly]

Full support because the facts are that microplastics are dangerous to human health and we oppose the discharge of them into the environment.

Signature of approval : The kingdom of brilliantly

Go pass the proposal, full support here.

[Scalizagasti]

Thank you for the feedback! I have updated the draft accordingly.

The definition still uses a number instead of the reasoning for the number shown and doesn't say if the diameter is smallest or largest. Remember most microplastic fragments are irregularly sized.

The definition has been updated to specify the longest dimension. However I am hesitant to switch away from a number due to the potential for loopholes.

You still have the committee doing the research instead of the member nations. Why? It reduces the strength effect of the text.

The committee works alongside individual member states to conduct research & collect data. The committee also researches the best practices that member states can take.

Clause 3 really fucks up some slow-release medications given the proposal doesn't define "plastics" as non-biodegradeable or the random size given in definition as the largest diameter of the fragment. I don't think that's intentional. Could also ban non-silk sutures for the same reason. And plastic-forming materials (plastic often goes from the producer of plastic to the manufacturer of plastic products as finer or coarser beads or powder).

An excellent point. This is mostly resolved by specifying the longest dimension (for instance with plastic sutures) but I have also given exceptions for both medical reasons and manufacturing reasons. Plastic nurdles, which are later melted down into larger macroplastics, are given special focus in 4(e).

4.a. would be better without the examples, I feel. Specific wastewater treatment methods (bioreactor? why would you want to poison a production unit with microplastics?) are going to be unfamiliar to the vast majority of voters and thus not really adding to the proposal.

I disagree, I don't see anything wrong with giving an example. If someone wants to learn more they have the example which they can search online, if they don't care it has no impact on them.

4.b. only thing mentioning research done by member states. Are you trying to mandate they do some? And why filtrate laundry machines if you're doing it to all waste water anyway (4.a.)? Example there also feels like not adding to the proposal.

With respect to the example, the more filtration the better considering the millions of microplastics released into the water by even a single water treatment plant.

4.d. why educational campaigns instead of, you know, including the info into basic education? Campaigns are overlooked much easier than school classes you need to pass. And what good is it anyway when you're not giving nations a choice in applying the wastewater filtering and manufacturing stuff?

Updated to include school curricula. There are ways that individuals can reduce microplastics which can be taught, alongside ways that governments can reduce them.

5.c. again creates an oxymoron because biodegradeable plastics are still plastics. Whole clause 5 seems a slightly disjointed step to begin with, given the rest of your clauses are to do with microplastics specifically. You're not even urging recycling, for example, though most nonbiodegradeable plastics can be recycled.

This is because (macro)plastics break down into microplastics; reducing consumption of them will lead to reduced microplastic pollution. The subclause also says "biodegradable alternatives to plastic," not "biodegradable plastic." Many (in fact most) existing biodegradable plastics still turn into microplastics, since the environments that they exist in aren't the ideal conditions they need to fully decompose.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2019 ... tic-crisis

Anyway, 5(c) was turned into 5(d) and a new 5(c) was created. This urges the development of new plastics which are specially designed to fully biodegrade in water and not just break down into microplastics. I avoided mentioning recycling because I didn't want to get into the territory of Ensuring Effectual Recycling, but after some consultation I decided to include a brief mention of recycling.

More generally, isn't wastewater treatment already mandated by a resolution? If its clauses do most of what you want done to wastewater, you could consider shifting from "All Businesses, Strong" to "Manufacturing" AoE.

When I first did research I did not find any resolutions like that. I did another search after you mentioned it and still could not find anything regarding wastewater treatment. If I missed it please let me know, thanks

[Junitaki-cho]

This isn't a subject I know a lot about, so I can't speak to the scientific accuracy of the claims given (though they look pretty convincing). Definitely glad to see more environmental proposals coming to the floor.

One point of contention could be the workload split between member states and the WASP, since 2(a) and 4(c) somewhat overlap. It's possible this is fine, but if you want to differentiate their responsibilities a bit you might put the WASP in charge of data aggregation and metaanalysis based on submitted national data. I'm also a little concerned by 3(a) and whether it's leaving too much room for companies to claim their microplastic-filled skin cream is "medicinal" to get around regulations. Maybe some kind of condition about the plastics being integral to the medical function or something could solve this.

Regarding extant legislation, the closest thing I found was GAR#107: Clean Water Act, particularly section 4(ii). Again, not familiar enough with the subject matter to say how these interact.

Honestly, the only thing I'm really disappointed with here is that this resolution only addresses prefabricated microplastics and doesn't really touch on materials which break down into microplastics at some point after production. I know that's a big topic and possibly beyond what's reasonable here, but it'd be cool to see some writing on that matter in the future. That said, I like what you're doing here. I've passed it along for additional feedback, but if nothing jarring is found, I'd definitely recommend in favour.

[Araraukar]

I'm also a little concerned by 3(a) and whether it's leaving too much room for companies to claim their microplastic-filled skin cream is "medicinal" to get around regulations. Maybe some kind of condition about the plastics being integral to the medical function or something could solve this.

OOC: Or just require that any product wanting to claim that needs to actually be processed and tested in the same way any other medicine needs to be. Because all that testing is very, VERY expensive and time-consuming.

A simpler way would be to not approve the microplastic stuff for external use as I can't off the top of my mind think of any medical use that'd not involve them being injected or swallowed or otherwise introduced into the body...