[DEFEATED]Long-Term Storage Of Produced Waste (Molopovia)

[Outer Sparta]

Since there is apparently no draft by Molopovia anywhere on the forums, I've decided to make a thread on their proposal given that it's in quorum.

Edit: now at vote

The General Assembly,

Recognizing that there have been numerous resolutions concerning produced waste storage,

Noting that so far, even with nuclear, chemical and biological resolutions, there has been no catch-all resolution passed to this very day,

Acknowledging that despite all other resolutions' efforts, the problem of non-contained waste is still prevalent today,

Wishing to remedy this situation and further strengthen our goal to alleviate and eliminate produced waste that can harm people and the environment alike,

Further recognizing that although no issue can ever disappear permanently, steps can be taken to alleviate it to the very point where it is no longer significantly affecting our society,

Hereby defines:

PRODUCED WASTE - Any kind of waste discharged from factories and other industrial zones that has the potential to become a problem, e.g. toxic waste, nuclear waste, polluted waste, etc.

BUSINESS - For the purposes of this resolution, any business, private or government-owned, engaging in manufacturing or production of any kinds of goods, or otherwise its operations requiring to operate an Industrial Facility (see definition below.)

STORAGE FACILITY - Facilities carefully constructed and certified to store produced waste inside it without further environmental contamination and destruction for a long period of time.

INDUSTRIAL FACILITY - Any facility owned privately or by the government used to manufacture or produce anything, that can hold the potential of discharging produced waste.

NGOs - Initialism for Non-Government Organizations, of which are private organizations dedicating funding, resources and time to any important cause, in this case the ensured long-term storage of produced waste.

Hereby legislates that:

1. All private businesses utilizing industrial facilities such as factories, must employ at least one storage facility, whether overground or as a bunker. Preexisting but certified facilities are allowed to be utilized by businesses.
2. In the event that businesses cannot acquire a storage facility, national governments and NGOs are encouraged to provide for them by constructing facilities or bunkers around their country.
3. Storage facilities must remain certified as safe for long-term containment, with a minimum standard of 70 years. They must be able to store at least 7,000 metric tons of waste and maintained professionally up until its intended duration.
4. NGOs and national governments are encouraged to invest time and resources in assisting in the effort to an non-contained waste-free world.
5. Measures must be taken in order to reduce waste discharge from industrial facilities of businesses.
6. Penalties in the form of monetary fines shall be distributed to businesses that do not take the necessary measures to store waste properly, even if they are offered facilities from an NGO or a national government.
7. Subsidization from the World Assembly and willing governments of member-states are encouraged, in order to advance towards the goal of a non-contained waste-free world.
8. Governments must also take measures to provide for their own industrial state businesses to have their long-term storage facilities of produced waste.
9. Occasional repairs updates, or overhauls if need be, to the storage facilities shall take place in order to maintain their upkeep as they age.

[Tinhampton]

Obligatory "full support yeah"

Code: Select all

[b][u]The General Assembly,[/u][/b]

Recognizing that there have been numerous resolutions concerning produced waste storage,

Noting that so far, even with nuclear, chemical and biological resolutions, there has been no catch-all resolution passed to this very day,

Acknowledging that despite all other resolutions' efforts, the problem of non-contained waste is still prevalent today,

Wishing to remedy this situation and further strengthen our goal to alleviate and eliminate produced waste that can harm people and the environment alike,

Further recognizing that although no issue can ever disappear permanently, steps can be taken to alleviate it to the very point where it is no longer significantly affecting our society,

[b]Hereby defines:[/b]

[u]PRODUCED WASTE[/u] - Any kind of waste discharged from factories and other industrial zones that has the potential to become a problem, e.g. toxic waste, nuclear waste, polluted waste, etc.

[u]BUSINESS[/u] - For the purposes of this resolution, any business, private or government-owned, engaging in manufacturing or production of any kinds of goods, or otherwise its operations requiring to operate an Industrial Facility (see definition below.)

[u]STORAGE FACILITY[/u] - Facilities carefully constructed and certified to store produced waste inside it without further environmental contamination and destruction for a long period of time.

[u]INDUSTRIAL FACILITY[/u] - Any facility owned privately or by the government used to manufacture or produce anything, that can hold the potential of discharging produced waste.

NGOs - Initialism for Non-Government Organizations, of which are private organizations dedicating funding, resources and time to any important cause, in this case the ensured long-term storage of produced waste.

[b]Hereby legislates that:[/b]

[list=1]
[*]All private businesses utilizing industrial facilities such as factories, must employ at least one storage facility, whether overground or as a bunker. Preexisting but certified facilities are allowed to be utilized by businesses.
[*]In the event that businesses cannot acquire a storage facility, national governments and NGOs are encouraged to provide for them by constructing facilities or bunkers around their country.
[*]Storage facilities must remain certified as safe for long-term containment, with a minimum standard of 70 years. They must be able to store at least 7,000 metric tons of waste and maintained professionally up until its intended duration.
[*]NGOs and national governments are encouraged to invest time and resources in assisting in the effort to an non-contained waste-free world.
[*]Measures must be taken in order to reduce waste discharge from industrial facilities of businesses.
[*]Penalties in the form of monetary fines shall be distributed to businesses that do not take the necessary measures to store waste properly, even if they are offered facilities from an NGO or a national government.
[*]Subsidization from the World Assembly and willing governments of member-states are encouraged, in order to advance towards the goal of a non-contained waste-free world.
[*]Governments must also take measures to provide for their own industrial state businesses to have their long-term storage facilities of produced waste.
[*]Occasional repairs updates, or overhauls if need be, to the storage facilities shall take place in order to maintain their upkeep as they age.[/list]

[Bananaistan]

“There are major issues here not least the fact that the proposing delegation did not do the rest of us the courtesy of providing us with the text of the proposal themselves, and did not open a debate themselves prior to asking us to vote on it.

“The requirement that every single business with an “industrial facility” must have a huge 70 year private dump regardless of the scope of the business is insane.

“The fact that this is stated as a requirement but then the following clause makes it optional is insane. Just what exactly are these businesses supposed to do?

“Then who pays for the 70 years of professional maintenance?

“Investing time and resources in assisting the effort to an non-contained waste-free world” is meaningless drivel.

“This general requirement to “reduce waste discharge” is bonkers. Specific problems have been addressed in other resolutions. It’s hardly the concern of this assemble if an old newspaper happens to blow out the door of a factory.

“This penalties thing. In the incredibly unlikely event that this proposal isn’t rightly utterly rejected by the assembly, I can assure you that the penalty in Bananaistan will be no more than 1/4d per millennium.

“Overall this will be a waste of the assembly’s time. It’s a shame that normal custom and practice has not been followed by the proposing delegation. Someone would have advised them not to bother and not waste everyone’s time.”

[Outer Sparta]

Obligatory "full support yeah"

Code: Select all

[b][u]The General Assembly,[/u][/b]

Recognizing that there have been numerous resolutions concerning produced waste storage,

Noting that so far, even with nuclear, chemical and biological resolutions, there has been no catch-all resolution passed to this very day,

Acknowledging that despite all other resolutions' efforts, the problem of non-contained waste is still prevalent today,

Wishing to remedy this situation and further strengthen our goal to alleviate and eliminate produced waste that can harm people and the environment alike,

Further recognizing that although no issue can ever disappear permanently, steps can be taken to alleviate it to the very point where it is no longer significantly affecting our society,

[b]Hereby defines:[/b]

[u]PRODUCED WASTE[/u] - Any kind of waste discharged from factories and other industrial zones that has the potential to become a problem, e.g. toxic waste, nuclear waste, polluted waste, etc.

[u]BUSINESS[/u] - For the purposes of this resolution, any business, private or government-owned, engaging in manufacturing or production of any kinds of goods, or otherwise its operations requiring to operate an Industrial Facility (see definition below.)

[u]STORAGE FACILITY[/u] - Facilities carefully constructed and certified to store produced waste inside it without further environmental contamination and destruction for a long period of time.

[u]INDUSTRIAL FACILITY[/u] - Any facility owned privately or by the government used to manufacture or produce anything, that can hold the potential of discharging produced waste.

NGOs - Initialism for Non-Government Organizations, of which are private organizations dedicating funding, resources and time to any important cause, in this case the ensured long-term storage of produced waste.

[b]Hereby legislates that:[/b]

[list=1]
[*]All private businesses utilizing industrial facilities such as factories, must employ at least one storage facility, whether overground or as a bunker. Preexisting but certified facilities are allowed to be utilized by businesses.
[*]In the event that businesses cannot acquire a storage facility, national governments and NGOs are encouraged to provide for them by constructing facilities or bunkers around their country.
[*]Storage facilities must remain certified as safe for long-term containment, with a minimum standard of 70 years. They must be able to store at least 7,000 metric tons of waste and maintained professionally up until its intended duration.
[*]NGOs and national governments are encouraged to invest time and resources in assisting in the effort to an non-contained waste-free world.
[*]Measures must be taken in order to reduce waste discharge from industrial facilities of businesses.
[*]Penalties in the form of monetary fines shall be distributed to businesses that do not take the necessary measures to store waste properly, even if they are offered facilities from an NGO or a national government.
[*]Subsidization from the World Assembly and willing governments of member-states are encouraged, in order to advance towards the goal of a non-contained waste-free world.
[*]Governments must also take measures to provide for their own industrial state businesses to have their long-term storage facilities of produced waste.
[*]Occasional repairs updates, or overhauls if need be, to the storage facilities shall take place in order to maintain their upkeep as they age.[/list]

Thank you for providing where all the underlines and bolds should be. I'm too lazy to do it myself

[Big Boyz]

They used "business" in the definition of "business".....

(granted, they are redefining it as strictly pertaining to manufacturing-related entities, but still......)

[Tinhampton]

They used "business" in the definition of "business".....

(granted, they are redefining it as strictly pertaining to manufacturing-related entities, but still......)

GA#349 "DEFINES debris as debris to quiet some illogical complaints." I see no reason why Molopovia can't do what Defwa did

[Big Boyz]

They used "business" in the definition of "business".....

(granted, they are redefining it as strictly pertaining to manufacturing-related entities, but still......)

GA#349 "DEFINES debris as debris to quiet some illogical complaints." I see no reason why Molopovia can't do what Defwa did

Yeah, but.....it's still not a good habit.

[Opiachus]

Our delegation is quite in awe of the degree of opposition (214 For-1106 Against) in the vote right now given the fact that the proposal obtained a quorum of regional delegates for approval, and thus ostensibly should have more support than this. We feel sorry for the proposing delegation and as a result will refrain from participating in the "Against" vote despite usually doing so with such a proposal.

[GreaterFrance]

Could someone explain please why there are so many votes against?

[Calamari Lands]

Could someone explain please why there are so many votes against?

"The Calamarilandese Delegacy voted against because of the lack of a drafting process. This makes the proposal's quality very dubious."

[Imperium Anglorum]

I voted against because of two things. One, the fact that you have to have a 70 year bunker in your backyard for some reason. Two, the fact that you can have the government build one for you and give it for your use.... but still get fined for not having it in your backyard. The latter part is just stupid.

I don't care whether someone drafted on-site or not. Proposal quality is only weakly associated with drafting on site.

[GreaterFrance]

Okay thanks

[Vrijstaat Limburg]

“The Free State votes against this proposal, partially because we dislike the fact that it has been drafted off-site, and partially because we disagree with major parts of the resolution, particularly regarding the controversial 70-year private dump.

We wish dr. Broska Tarlishak of the Molopovian delegation the best of luck in the polls, and pray that the General Assembly’s democratic process guarantees the best results for each and every nation within it.”

[Opiachus]

I voted against because of two things. One, the fact that you have to have a 70 year bunker in your backyard for some reason. Two, the fact that you can have the government build one for you and give it for your use.... but still get fined for not having it in your backyard. The latter part is just stupid.

I don't care whether someone drafted on-site or not. Proposal quality is only weakly associated with drafting on site.

As a follow-up to our previous statement on why we aren't supporting this proposal, our delegation concurs with this assessment. We think other delegations should keep in mind that for the highest standards of professionalism the focus of discussion should be on the merits and the content of the proposal, not whether courtesies and customs regarding the prior dissemination and discussion of drafts were followed. We think others should avoid treating the proposal harshly or unfairly on these procedural reasons alone.

[North Supreria]

North Supreria is disappointed with the proposing delegation. There has been no discussion about the proposal, where there has been no possibility to work (together) on the proposal, to make it better. This is reflected in the quality of the proposal and the many questions and uncertainties that are prevalent among the member nations and ourselves. In terms of content, North Supreria is against this proposal, but there are also a lot of technical problems.

North Supreria supports the ideal of a world with less (harmful) waste and to handle it safely, but this proposal does not help achieve this. First, Companies are required to employ at least one storage facility, but if a company can't acquire one it is not required anymore. If a company cannot acquire a storage facility, it is suddenly no longer mandatory and the government must only "do its best" to help a company. Second, the term of 70 years is extremely long, many companies will not even exist that long, and as a result of which "ex-companies" are attached to a bunker/facility or there are many bunkers/facilities that are not used. North Supreria is also afraid that in times of economic recession a lot of facilities have been built for nothing. Third, financial penalties cannot be given to companies due to the non-binding wording of clause 2, which does not require the use of a storage facility. Fourth, maintaining a storage facility for 70 years costs a lot of money. North Supreria is not sure who has to pay for this, especially if a storage facility is no longer in use by an "ex-company". North Supreria does not want to transfer these costs to companies themselves, but we are also don't want to maintain an enormous amount of storage facilities ourselves.

[Monoge]

Monoge takes particular concern in the disregard for the size of different businesses. While this proposal is of some merit, we have determined that this would favour large businesses who would be able to meet the requirements in the resolution far easier. Noting the difficulties this would cause in creating new businesses, and concerned about the way in which this could push industry into the unregulated black market, it has voted in opposition.

Recognising, however, the merits of this proposal; we beseech other delegates with the ability to utilise the necessary avenues to create a comparable yet superior alternative and will support any such attempt.

[Outer Sparta]

Could someone explain please why there are so many votes against?

There are a lot of major flaws present in the proposal in regards to storage of waste.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Not to pile on, but... It takes quite a large and unavoidable set of intrinsic flaws to cause my home government not to support environme... uh, hold - I mean, public safety laws - in this Assembly. This proposal has achieved it, through a combination of utter lack of consideration for varying business circumstances, and a mandate for gross, needless redundancy. What's that you say? 'Needless redundancy' is redundant? Not as redundant as requiring every industrial producer in the entire World Assembly to build its own long term waste storage facility! We oppose. Perhaps the drafting delegation can pick a venue where criticism and improvements are possible for their next try at a resolution. I don't demand a say in the drafting, but someone else ought to have been permitted to take a look prior to submission."

If you have a good proposal, it doesn't matter where you draft it. But if you're not an experienced author, it tends to be quite helpful to get others' feedback on your drafts. There are a number of places one can do this; the GA forum here is the default, but large regions tend to have WA authorship mentoring and would be more than happy to help out someone who wants to get involved. I don't think a demand that everyone post a draft here before submitting is reasonable (let alone enforcible...), but it is a good idea to get some expert level of feedback prior to submission.

TL;dr - no, don't feel obligated to draft here; but don't go it alone!

[Outer Sparta]

"Not to pile on, but... It takes quite a large and unavoidable set of intrinsic flaws to cause my home government not to support environme... uh, hold - I mean, public safety laws - in this Assembly. This proposal has achieved it, through a combination of utter lack of consideration for varying business circumstances, and a mandate for gross, needless redundancy. What's that you say? 'Needless redundancy' is redundant? Not as redundant as requiring every industrial producer in the entire World Assembly to build its own long term waste storage facility! We oppose. Perhaps the drafting delegation can pick a venue where criticism and improvements are possible for their next try at a resolution. I don't demand a say in the drafting, but someone else ought to have been permitted to take a look prior to submission."

If you have a good proposal, it doesn't matter where you draft it. But if you're not an experienced author, it tends to be quite helpful to get others' feedback on your drafts. There are a number of places one can do this; the GA forum here is the default, but large regions tend to have WA authorship mentoring and would be more than happy to help out someone who wants to get involved. I don't think a demand that everyone post a draft here before submitting is reasonable (let alone enforcible...), but it is a good idea to get some expert level of feedback prior to submission.

TL;dr - no, don't feel obligated to draft here; but don't go it alone!

I'm not entirely sure where people draft offsite if they choose there (Discord server? Some NS-related offsite forum?) but it certainly helps to draft on the NS forums so those on NS can see it and provide feedback.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm not entirely sure where people draft offsite if they choose there (Discord server? Some NS-related offsite forum?) but it certainly helps to draft on the NS forums so those on NS can see it and provide feedback.

People draft off site all the time. Drafting off site is more useful when it comes to the political aspect of the game. Eg pre-death penalty ban, the legality of a death penalty ban is mostly a non-issue (Int'l Crim Protocol notwithstanding). The main issue isn't whether it is legal, it is whether it can be passed. Catering to the feedback of GA players, who are not necessarily connected to getting the votes to make DPB happen, is counterproductive.

That said, some drafting and feedback also really ought to be done off-site. Eg if there are grammatical or spelling problems, it is a lot easier to recommend them in Google Docs than it is to chase through a pile of bbCode. It also is generally far less antagonistic. One generally can't make a broad 'this is bad and this is why' argument in Google Docs. One can only give constructive feedback by suggesting changes. It also helps that the tools for making that happen are so much better in Google Docs.

[Outer Sparta]

I'm not entirely sure where people draft offsite if they choose there (Discord server? Some NS-related offsite forum?) but it certainly helps to draft on the NS forums so those on NS can see it and provide feedback.

People draft off site all the time. Drafting off site is more useful when it comes to the political aspect of the game. Eg pre-death penalty ban, the legality of a death penalty ban is mostly a non-issue (Int'l Crim Protocol notwithstanding). The main issue isn't whether it is legal, it is whether it can be passed. Catering to the feedback of GA players, who are not necessarily connected to getting the votes to make DPB happen, is counterproductive.

That said, some drafting and feedback also really ought to be done off-site. Eg if there are grammatical or spelling problems, it is a lot easier to recommend them in Google Docs than it is to chase through a pile of bbCode. It also is generally far less antagonistic. One generally can't make a broad 'this is bad and this is why' argument in Google Docs. One can only give constructive feedback by suggesting changes. It also helps that the tools for making that happen are so much better in Google Docs.

Fair points, especially with how Google Docs is a good venue for drafting resolutions. I'm not sure where the author drafted this, but the process that happened couldn't have accounted for the major flaws present within the proposal.

[Shamian]

Could someone explain please why there are so many votes against?

Because the Author clearly hasn't thought through the implications of how their proposal is worded, and what effect this will have on smaller manufacturers.

Allow me to illustrate, with a real world example:
- A&I Holmes & Co Ltd produces cheese cloth caps, binders and straining cloths for the dairy trade.
- They are a small family firm with less than 20 employees; mostly family members.
- Cutting out the Caps & Binders results in off-cuts of fabric.
- The waste fabric scraps constitute a fire hazard, so at present they are stored in a sealed steel container outside.
- The waste fabric is collected for recycling on a weekly basis.

Were we to take this real world example, and subject it to the requirements of this proposal then;
- The offcuts represent a fire hazard, and therefore as per the wording of this proposal they have "the potential to become a problem" and must be treated as controlled waste.
- Under the requirements of this proposal, this would require the construction of a long term storage facility.
- Said facility is required to be of a size that would dwarf their current manufacturing and office facilities by several orders of magnitude.
- This despite the fact that there will never be any need for long term storage, as the waste is recycled into new cloth weekly.
- This despite the fact that the waste (natural bleached cotton) is both entirely non-hazardous and fully biodegradable.

As such, this proposal is not fit for purpose, as it tries to force the use of a "one size fits all" approach, for something that should really vary by industry and production capacity of the manufacturer.
And as a result, it effectively outlaws small & medium sized companies.
I really do wish folk would think about exactly what they have written, and consider all possible implications before hitting submit.
I get it, i really do - you want a nice shiny badge - but please engage brain, mm'k?

[Brezzia]

The definitions of waste and business are shorter way to repeat a longer concept, so I don't think the author made bad definition (it's not a dictionary).

Clause 1 states that private business have to "employ" one storage facility, they do not need to own it, buy it or bluid it. They can rent it or share together the same one.

Clause 2 states that government and NGOs "are encouraged" to aid businesses that cannot acquire a facility, they are not forced to build facility for all businesses. Governments have to assure a facility only to state business (clause .

About clause 3, 7000 metric tons are roughly 7000 m^3 of water. If the facility heigh is 14 m (a three-floors house), it will need 500 m^2 (20m*25m) which is 3 volleyball field for non-metric users, maybe 4-5 (650-800 m^2) with walls, space between stored stuff, stairs etc. I don't how much waste a factory can produce and the Weight/Volume Ratio change with the material, but a 1000 m^2 industrial building of a medium factory seems good even if it allows smaller ones to store their waste in its facility.

Clause 5 states that "measures must be taken in order to reduce waste discharge from industrial facilities of businesses". According to the definitions, any kind of waste that has not the potential to become a problem (like recyclable waste) are not considered by this resolution. All actions that reduce the waste discharge that has the potential to become a problem inside the factory must be preferred to sending them to storage facilities (like nuclear waste in new generation nuclear fission reactor).

Clause 6 probably means that factories will be fined if they can use a national or NGO facility, but they don't send their waste there. A facility is offered them, but they still don't store waste properly.

Clause 9 does not indicate who are responsible for facility maintenance, so Nations have to indicate them: government, owners or users.

It seems a really good resolution to me.

[Outer Sparta]

The definitions of waste and business are shorter way to repeat a longer concept, so I don't think the author made bad definition (it's not a dictionary).

Clause 1 states that private business have to "employ" one storage facility, they do not need to own it, buy it or bluid it. They can rent it or share together the same one.

Clause 2 states that government and NGOs "are encouraged" to aid businesses that cannot acquire a facility, they are not forced to build facility for all businesses. Governments have to assure a facility only to state business (clause .

About clause 3, 7000 metric tons are roughly 7000 m^3 of water. If the facility heigh is 14 m (a three-floors house), it will need 500 m^2 (20m*25m) which is 3 volleyball field for non-metric users, maybe 4-5 (650-800 m^2) with walls, space between stored stuff, stairs etc. I don't how much waste a factory can produce and the Weight/Volume Ratio change with the material, but a 1000 m^2 industrial building of a medium factory seems good even if it allows smaller ones to store their waste in its facility.

Clause 5 states that "measures must be taken in order to reduce waste discharge from industrial facilities of businesses". According to the definitions, any kind of waste that has not the potential to become a problem (like recyclable waste) are not considered by this resolution. All actions that reduce the waste discharge that has the potential to become a problem inside the factory must be preferred to sending them to storage facilities (like nuclear waste in new generation nuclear fission reactor).

Clause 6 probably means that factories will be fined if they can use a national or NGO facility, but they don't send their waste there. A facility is offered them, but they still don't store waste properly.

Clause 9 does not indicate who are responsible for facility maintenance, so Nations have to indicate them: government, owners or users.

It seems a really good resolution to me.

Normally I would support a resolution similar to this, but it has a lot of flaws. Like why does every business have to have at least one waste disposal facility? What if I own an online job posting company? What would that waste disposal facility be of use for in that context?

[Brezzia]

Normally I would support a resolution similar to this, but it has a lot of flaws. Like why does every business have to have at least one waste disposal facility? What if I own an online job posting company? What would that waste disposal facility be of use for in that context?

"For the purposes of this resolution, any business, private or government-owned, engaging in manufacturing or production of any kinds of goods, or otherwise its operations requiring to operate an Industrial Facility (see definition below.)"

If you have an online job company, you do not manufact or produce any kind of good and do not to operate an Industrial Facility ("any facility owned privately or by the government used to manufacture or produce anything, that can hold the potential of discharging produced waste.").

Probably, you will just produce paper waste, which is recyclable, so it is not "kind of waste discharged from factories and other industrial zones that has the potential to become a problem, e.g. toxic waste, nuclear waste, polluted waste, etc." ( a produced waste "for the purposes of this resolution").

As I wrote previously, it seems a really good resolution to me.