[PASSED] Volcanic Activity Convention

[Barfleur]

:roll: It is recommended that Ireland expand upon current infrastructure to better combat volcanic activity just as it is recommended that Italy do so. Ireland has thus born the impact of this recommendation (viz. its people and government have been properly harangued) just as Italy has. The fact that there are no active volcanoes in Ireland and thus the Irish government has very little incentive to create counter-volcanic infrastructure is entirely beside the point. As it would be if instead the proposal read, say, "Nations are absolutely required to create concrete reinforcements on the likely lava flow route into any city (pop >50,000) within 10 km of an active volcano." In this latter case, Ireland looks at its infrastructure, sees that all such reinforcements that are required - all zero of them - have been built, and moves onto other business. Italy's much more expensive road to compliance is not a sign that Ireland is either not in compliance or somehow exempt from compliance.

TL;dr - the presence or absence of factors requiring national action under a WA law is irrelevant to the writing of such a law, and saying "but we don't have volcanoes on Farfoodlebrox Delta, the fourth moon of Omicron Convenience VI!" is not an argument for or against any provision of any resolution.

OOC: So does Ireland have to make infrastructure improvements to protect their people from those non existent volcanoes or not?

OOC: No, because if zero reinforcements are required, doing nothing fulfills the requirement.

A volcano erupts in AD 79 and the pyroclastic flow incinerates a town of 16 thousand people, burning all of the inhabitants alive. I would call that a 'bad' thing. Sure, there probably isn't anyone who is specifically responsible, but a 'bad' thing nevertheless.

Of course, that is a bad thing, but it doesn't make nature inherently bad. In 1912 a ship was sunk by an iceberg that it collided with, drowning 1517 in the Atlantic as a result. Does that make the iceberg itself 'bad'? No, I'd argue that it's doesn't. The iceberg caused a bad thing, but it isn't bad itself. The same can be applied to volcanoes, or any other natural phenomenon that causes the deaths, I'd say.

OOC: Perhaps the natural phenomenon itself (i.e. volcano or iceberg) is neither good nor bad, but its effects on human sapient life is bad, and may be deemed worthy of attention from the World Assembly or from national governments.

[South St Maarten]

OOC: So does Ireland have to make infrastructure improvements to protect their people from those non existent volcanoes or not?

OOC: No, because if zero reinforcements are required, doing nothing fulfills the requirement.

Of course, that is a bad thing, but it doesn't make nature inherently bad. In 1912 a ship was sunk by an iceberg that it collided with, drowning 1517 in the Atlantic as a result. Does that make the iceberg itself 'bad'? No, I'd argue that it's doesn't. The iceberg caused a bad thing, but it isn't bad itself. The same can be applied to volcanoes, or any other natural phenomenon that causes the deaths, I'd say.

OOC: Perhaps the natural phenomenon itself (i.e. volcano or iceberg) is neither good nor bad, but its effects on human sapient life is bad, and may be deemed worthy of attention from the World Assembly or from national governments.

I echo the above ambassador's comments. A wildfire, let us say, when caused by natural events, can have both devastating (killing animals) and positive (providing proper temperature for specific plant seeds to germinate) effects. I can equate that to a neutral effect (i.e. 10 + -10 = 0).

However, when a wildfire destroys a town and kills all the people, that is a decidedly negative effect.

[Minskiev]

So are there any questions related to the draft?

[Daarwyrth]

Of course, that is a bad thing, but it doesn't make nature inherently bad. In 1912 a ship was sunk by an iceberg that it collided with, drowning 1517 in the Atlantic as a result. Does that make the iceberg itself 'bad'? No, I'd argue that it's doesn't. The iceberg caused a bad thing, but it isn't bad itself. The same can be applied to volcanoes, or any other natural phenomenon that causes the deaths, I'd say.

OOC: I think he’s calling the event bad, not the volcano.

OOC: The initial comment appeared differently to me, but that could be a question of interpretation.

OOC: Perhaps the natural phenomenon itself (i.e. volcano or iceberg) is neither good nor bad, but its effects on human sapient life is bad, and may be deemed worthy of attention from the World Assembly or from national governments.

OOC: But I don't oppose this proposal draft. In fact, as can be seen from my earlier IC comment, I support it. I was addressing a comment made by IA, not criticising the proposal And I am not disputing the fact that natural phenomenons cause negative/horrible effects, that is without question. I was merely defending the viewpoint that just because they cause bad things, they aren't inherently bad themselves. Absolutely, they need to be prevented and their effects mitigated, which is why I support this proposal, but they shouldn't be treated as evil (not that this proposal does that). As I said, it could be a question of interpretation regarding what IA stated.

[Minskiev]

For my take on the topic, I don't believe that nature is good or bad, same goes for volcanoes. I therefore didn't write this proposal because volcanoes are evil, but rather to build upon current legislation regarding it, and to mitigate damage, because volcanoes are harmful to us.

[Daarwyrth]

For my take on the topic, I don't believe that nature is good or bad, same goes for volcanoes. I therefore didn't write this proposal because volcanoes are evil, but rather to build upon current legislation regarding it, and to mitigate damage, because volcanoes are harmful to us.

OOC: And in my opinion the current text of the draft does that quite adequately tbh, I am very much in favour of this being specifically for volcanic hazards. While all environmental hazards carry risks and dangers, volcanic ones have several specific to them (toxic gasses, heat, pyroclastic clouds etc etc). I think it is good that it receives its own specific thing, and personally I wouldn't mind seeing that happen for each environmental threat separately, but for now volcanic threats will do nicely.

[Minskiev]

Bumping. Any questions?

[Honeydewistania]

Bumping. Any questions?

Last call after five days? I'd recommend returning it to 'draft' state

[Araraukar]

OOC: Many of the issues I pointed out are still there.

If the draft in the OP is not the latest draft, UPDATE YOUR POST.

[Minskiev]

OOC: Many of the issues I pointed out are still there.

If the draft in the OP is not the latest draft, UPDATE YOUR POST.

Someone clearly hasn't seen my response.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Many of the issues I pointed out are still there.

If the draft in the OP is not the latest draft, UPDATE YOUR POST.

Someone clearly hasn't seen my response.

OOC: What good is your response when you're not fixing the problems in the draft?

For example, your "clean after past volcanic eruptions" response - HOW FAR INTO THE PAST? Should we try to remove Deccan Traps (the highlands of the subcontinent of India) to "clean up"? Or destroy Hawaiian Islands (formed by volcanic eruptions) and many other islands for that matter. Most volcanoes that are mountain-shaped, have been formed by volcanic eruptions. Should they be removed to "clean up"? Have fun hitting the lava chamber inside an active one.

What you SHOULD have, is adding the word "recent" or just "when possible" or similar. In many cases it's easier to just build on top of the lava-turned-to-rock than try to mine it away. That's pretty much how RL humans have been dealing with the issue since there's been people constructing shelters. I would very much favour using BOTH "recent" and "when possible" so as not to require a volcanic island to be destroyed because there's no limit to what "past" means. Also, volcanic soil is most fertile that we know of, in RL, so removing that would also remove the environment you care so much, of some of the biodiversity hotspots, as well as very likely destroy or at least greatly hinder the locals' ability to farm crops.

Do you understand the issue now?

And majority of people harping about the good and bad of natural events seem to have missed the bit of my feedback that said "What you mean is "hazard to society and infrastructure"." Because let's face the facts: WE CANNOT PREVENT VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS with anything similar to RL tech or even most future tech imaginable (if you're so overpowered you can create solar systems, just make a planet without volcanoes!). But what we can do, is to try and minimize the loss of lives and infrastucture. In some cases lava flows can be redirected (Iceland, you kick ass!) away from cities and airports and whatnot, but you still cannot stop the eruption itself. So, you're talking about hazards to society and infrastructure, not the environment. Volcanoes have been erupting on our RL planet since before life existed. They're part of how the environment works.

Liaise is now partnered with another verb, but it still doesn't mean much. Liaise exactly how? To prepare how? This is where the definition having "hazard to society and infrastructure" would really come handy, as it would give you some idea of what exactly should they be prepared to do. Since it's impossible to stop volcanic eruptions, you could prepare, say, evacuation plans and further plans of where and how you house and feed the displaced people.

How is the WA able to predict volcanic eruptions?

And the "Locate where volcanic eruptions have occurred in the past" - in cases of planets like the RL Earth, the answer is "everywhere" if you go far enough into the past. You realize that our planet was basically molten rock at some point, yes? So, again, you need some restraining word to go with "past". Perhaps "recorded history of volcanic eruptions"? Or maybe "past volcanic eruptions of active volcanoes" or something like that. Because it doesn't help much to know an eruption happened some millions of years ago, because an asteroid hit on the opposite side of the planet and excited a hotspot into massive activity. (Hint: It's largely how non-avian dinosaurs died, Deccan Traps were formed, Indian subcontinent was accelerated northwards so that it created the Himalayas, and why African continent didn't rotate so far counterclockwise that we wouldn't have the Red Sea or Persian Gulf, and the Mediterranean Sea would just be a fjord of the Atlantic. If you think this all isn't true, look it up!)

The "Create scientific modeling of volcanic disaster scenarios to determine what sizes and types of eruptions could endanger the international population" still doesn't make much sense. If the WA committee is doing all this, why are you creating double bureaucracy by also requiring the nations do this (the Liaise clause)? Wouldn't it make more sense if the committee compiled the data the nations provide it with, and identified possible future problems? (Like, I think the committee would raise quite big red flags about the Yellowstone and Gulf of Napoli supervolcanoes, given both are showing signs of growing activity, and would likely tell nations to have some plans how to not end up like the dinosaurs when they go off.)

If you want to fix this nonsense, you could instead give the task to nations to model whatever you want them to model on a national basis, and then give the data to the committee, which could figure out if it's internationally significant.

Random notes: "directs" doesn't sound like a mandate, "fallout" is entirely wrong word to use here, why is clause 3 only a recommendation?, 5.a. is still unnecessary, and why the heck should any of this apply to nations that do not have volcanoes? EDIT: Beyond what the committee would say after compiling the data nations submit to it. If you make the change.

[Minskiev]

-snip-

Really had to decipher this one . However, I now understand some of your concerns. Thank you for clarifying, I shall edit my draft some more.

[Araraukar]

-snip-

Really had to decipher this one . However, I now understand some of your concerns. Thank you for clarifying, I shall edit my draft some more.

OOC: I was a bit annoyed at something else when I wrote it, so my apologies if it sounded angry or something. It wasn't your fault.

But really, if you have any problems with understanding some parts of my post, please telegram me, I can explain them in more general/easier ways. Or with more examples.

[Minskiev]

Really had to decipher this one . However, I now understand some of your concerns. Thank you for clarifying, I shall edit my draft some more.

OOC: I was a bit annoyed at something else when I wrote it, so my apologies if it sounded angry or something. It wasn't your fault.

But really, if you have any problems with understanding some parts of my post, please telegram me, I can explain them in more general/easier ways. Or with more examples.

No worries, you made some valid points. I also found that just dissecting it in Notepad helped lol

[Minskiev]

I'll bump again.

[Minskiev]

...and again

[Outer Sparta]

...and again

I don't think you need to bump it after one day.

[Minskiev]

Bumping one more time

Would appreciate feedback on the draft.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Have not forgotten this, but had a scare with cardiac health, so been a bit preoccupied with RL. Will try to get back to you this weekend latest.

[The Unified Missourtama States]

"This -- kind of does nothing..."

[Minskiev]

OOC: Have not forgotten this, but had a scare with cardiac health, so been a bit preoccupied with RL. Will try to get back to you this weekend latest.

No problem! Personal health is far more serious than NS.

[Minskiev]

Alright, I'm submitting soon.

[Honeydewistania]

Alright, I'm submitting soon.

OOC: Have not forgotten this, but had a scare with cardiac health, so been a bit preoccupied with RL. Will try to get back to you this weekend latest.

shouldnt you wait for people to respond

[Minskiev]

Alright, I'm submitting soon.

OOC: Have not forgotten this, but had a scare with cardiac health, so been a bit preoccupied with RL. Will try to get back to you this weekend latest.

shouldnt you wait for people to respond

i mean I'll wait for ara but I mean be real nobody else is coming

[Pland Adanna]

Hey! I have two questions/suggestions about a line of this proposal. The proposal says that member states should "Address any and all predicted, current, and recent past volcanic activity within national borders, to the best extent possible, when possible;" Just so you know, I'm just starting to get involved in these forums and discussions so I might be missing something.

My questions/suggestions are:
1. What qualifies as "addressing" the volcanic activity? You could say that giving a press conference about a volcanic eruption is "addressing" it so I think you might want to clarify a bit.
2. What counts as "predicted" volcanic activity? If someone randomly decides to say, "I think that an eruption is coming," it seems that would count as predicted volcanic activity that member states must address. Maybe it would help if you clarified who needs to predict the activity?