Advertisement
by My conpuder » Fri Jan 13, 2023 10:24 am
by The Ice States » Fri Jan 13, 2023 11:12 am
Potted Plants United wrote:The Ice States wrote:Ooc: That's not what the word "environmental degradation" means; will a can of antibiotics being spilled result in (quoting Wikipedia), "the deterioration of the environment through depletion of resources such as quality of air, water and soil; the destruction of ecosystems; habitat destruction; the extinction of wildlife; [or] pollution"? The answer is no.
OOC: A can? No. A shipping container? Probably.
Once again, substantially does not mean fully.
Exactly. So, either nowhere is, or everywhere is.
"Site" has been changed to "location".
That makes it worse! Sizewise: location > site > container. You want to wrap the metaphorical cling wrap around the smallest unit to make it anywhere near feasible to actually make happen.
As to Section 5a, the TMC will have greater knowledge and resources, and will have fewer biases, than a member nation, to determine "a recommended means for minimising or resolving harm, as a result of said incident, to that nation's natural environment", and also to provide effective information to the affected nation.
Where does it get the information? From the member nations? So, again, what's the committee for, when you could just require the nations to communicate with one another?
if, for example, Nation A causes a spill in Nation B, which Nation A is at war with, if the TMC is involved it can send agents to perform the cleanup on behalf of nation A, rather than Nation A itself directly doing so.
It's just missing the bit where the cleaning bill would be sent to Nation A, not the General Fund.
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Jan 13, 2023 11:19 am
by Potted Plants United » Sat Jan 14, 2023 2:09 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:OOC. What nonsense bluster out of Ara: apparently a general non-contradiction clause – or a good faith one, who knows over these edits, – is slavery.
(contra previous claims, also by Ara, general non-contradiction clauses are not illegal)
Separatist Peoples wrote:"NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE!"
- Mr. Bell, when introduced to PPU's newest moving plant
by Imperium Anglorum » Sat Jan 14, 2023 9:17 am
Potted Plants United wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:OOC. What nonsense bluster out of Ara: apparently a general non-contradiction clause – or a good faith one, who knows over these edits, – is slavery.
OOC: Thank you, sweetie, I can always rely on you to jump in to be a contrarian. Now that you're paying attention to the thread, can you also help the author by looking over the actual proposal for any possible feedback?(contra previous claims, also by Ara, general non-contradiction clauses are not illegal)
Not sure when I said they were illegal (but if you say so, I'm sure I've written those words, as you remember everything I post - which is kind of flattering, really - so no need to post links ), but I definitely think they should be illegal, when used as an "I know this contradicts something so here's an excuse why it doesn't, until something gets repealed if it ever does" excuse. It's basically lazy proposal writing. The more general non-contradiction clause is "in accordance with previously passed resolutions, hereby" or something like that, which is more along the lines of "I tried doing my best to make this abide by the existing resolutions, if I missed something minor, this should handle it".
Allowing lazy writing means someone could pass a resolution mandating death penalty for, say, treason, and with the lazy excuse in it, it would be totally legal. Unless you want people to start putting it in all manner of illegal-for-contradiction proposals, I don't quite understand why you of all people would argue against the point?
(So others don't get confused, I really did reference society's opinions evolving from thinking slavery's good to slavery's bad, as a simile for how opinions on what's good or bad in resolutions can also change over time.)
by Honeydewistania » Sat Jan 14, 2023 10:33 am
Alger wrote:if you have egoquotes in your signature, touch grass
by The Ice States » Sat Jan 14, 2023 11:17 am
Honeydewistania wrote:Benji coughs. "More coffee, please." It was going to be a long night. He flipped through the transcripts of discussions on the Responsible Handling of Toxic Materials until he finally found something to comment.
"What does the 'substantially' in the definition of natural environment achieve? It's just a fluffy meaningless word. Also, this is nowhere near submission."
by The Ice States » Sun Jan 15, 2023 11:37 pm
by Comfed » Mon Jan 16, 2023 3:59 pm
by The Ice States » Mon Jan 16, 2023 4:13 pm
Comfed wrote:Section 3 - this reads to me as it if prohibits storing a toxic material in a natural environment at all and requires that it be secured with a physical barrier. Is this intentional?
Comfed wrote:Edit: Section 7b - if the TMC has to compensate entities from which IP-protected data is being collected from, I don't see why it should be fully optional for those entities to provide data to the TMC.
by Comfed » Mon Jan 16, 2023 4:16 pm
The Ice States wrote:Comfed wrote:Edit: Section 7b - if the TMC has to compensate entities from which IP-protected data is being collected from, I don't see why it should be fully optional for those entities to provide data to the TMC.
That is entirely to make it more palatable to voters who would not want entities to provide the information. I am content to amend the language as to make provision mandatory.
by The Ice States » Mon Jan 16, 2023 4:32 pm
Comfed wrote:
"Natural environment" is pretty broad. Pretty much anywhere on earth could be argued to be one. Nuclear waste is often stored deep underground in sealed containers to prevent contamination, but arguably deep underground is a natural environment.
The Ice States wrote:That is entirely to make it more palatable to voters who would not want entities to provide the information. I am content to amend the language as to make provision mandatory.
I don't know why people would not want them to provide that information.
by Potted Plants United » Tue Jan 17, 2023 3:59 pm
Responsible Handling of Toxic Materials
Category: Environmental
AoE: All Businesses - Strong
The World Assembly,
Concerned by the lack of current legislation on the handling of toxic materials,
Aware that many toxic materials are necessary raw materials for chemical industry, or the immediate side-products thereof,
Hoping to minimize the exposure of both people and natural environment to toxic materials during production, transporting and storage,
Hereby,
1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution,
- "natural environment" as any environment with unrestricted access to the atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere or soil,
- "toxic material" as any material that is present in such quantities and concentrations as to pose a serious health risk to either people, the natural environment or both, in the case of an uncontrolled release,
- "uncontrolled release" as the introduction of a toxic material into the natural environment without taking adequate steps to reduce its toxicity to levels where it no longer poses a serious health risk;
2. Bans intentional uncontrolled releases, and mandates they be investigated and prosecuted as crimes, unless it can be proven that the action was necessary to prevent a more serious inident, such as emergency venting of toxic gas to avoid a catastrophic explosion in a production facility;
3. Requires that unintentional uncontrolled releases be reported to the local and national authorities immediately upon their discovery, even if the full extent of the release was not yet known, and that if the toxic material poses a credible hazard to another nation's population or environment, that nation's authorities must also be informed as soon as possible;
4. Further requires that all facilities that produce, process or store toxic materials, take necessary measures to reduce any chances of uncontrolled releases, sample the nearby environment regularly to test for toxic material pollution originating from the facility, and report the test results to the local and national authorities;
5. Mandates that all transporting of toxic materials must be handled so as to minimize any chance of an uncontrolled release in the case of an accident, such as a vehicle crash; and that the persons responsible for the toxic material during transporting are aware of the safety requirements of their cargo, and are equipped with the necessary personal safety equipment to deal with an immediate accident aftermath, if otherwise able to do so;
6. Also encourages member nations to research safer alternatives to toxic materials that are still in use.
Separatist Peoples wrote:"NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE!"
- Mr. Bell, when introduced to PPU's newest moving plant
by Magecastle Embassy Building A5 » Tue Jan 17, 2023 4:47 pm
Wallenburg wrote:If you get a Nobel Prize for the time machine because you wanted to win an argument on the Internet, try to remember the little people who started you on that way.
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Our research and user feedback found different use cases of bullets, such as hunting, national defense, and murder. Typically, most bullets fired do not kill people. However, sometimes they do. We found that nearly 100% of users were not impacted by shooting one random user every 30 days, reducing the likelihood of a negative impact on the average user.
Comfed wrote:When I look around me at the state of real life politics, with culture war arguments over abortion and LGBT rights, and then I look at the WA and see the same debates about cannibalism, I have hope for the world.
by The Ice States » Mon Jan 23, 2023 11:11 am
by The Ice States » Wed Feb 15, 2023 9:09 pm
by Zabzia » Thu Feb 16, 2023 10:58 am
by Tinhampton » Thu Feb 16, 2023 11:12 am
Zabzia wrote:This vote is incredibly harsh on those with developing economies. As we are a 'Strong' Economy we hope to develop into a 'Frightening' Economy to give our citizens the best quality of life. We can't achieve this if environmental regulations are hindering us.
by Zabzia » Thu Feb 16, 2023 11:20 am
Tinhampton wrote:Zabzia wrote:This vote is incredibly harsh on those with developing economies. As we are a 'Strong' Economy we hope to develop into a 'Frightening' Economy to give our citizens the best quality of life. We can't achieve this if environmental regulations are hindering us.
I am a WA member with a Frightening economy and I have voted for this resolution.
by The Ice States » Thu Feb 16, 2023 11:28 am
Zabzia wrote:This vote is incredibly harsh on those with developing economies. As we are a 'Strong' Economy we hope to develop into a 'Frightening' Economy to give our citizens the best quality of life. We can't achieve this if environmental regulations are hindering us.
by Heidgaudr » Thu Feb 16, 2023 11:29 am
The Ice States wrote:Zabzia wrote:This vote is incredibly harsh on those with developing economies. As we are a 'Strong' Economy we hope to develop into a 'Frightening' Economy to give our citizens the best quality of life. We can't achieve this if environmental regulations are hindering us.
This applies to all economies and nations equally. It certainly does not "discriminat[e] against developing countries".
by La Chonita » Thu Feb 16, 2023 7:34 pm
For the purposes of this resolution, a material shall be considered "toxic" in an environment or a quantity such that said material would pose, directly or via contamination of surrounding environments, a significant risk to health or of causing environmental degradation.
by The Ice States » Thu Feb 16, 2023 7:37 pm
La Chonita wrote:For the purposes of this resolution, a material shall be considered "toxic" in an environment or a quantity such that said material would pose, directly or via contamination of surrounding environments, a significant risk to health or of causing environmental degradation.
The delegation of La Chonita has issues over the definition of “toxic” and feels a need for a proper list that outlines which chemical or chemical compounds would be considered “toxic”. Otherwise, any nation can call foul over another spilling expired milk into their backyard.
by La Chonita » Thu Feb 16, 2023 11:43 pm
The Ice States wrote:La Chonita wrote:
The delegation of La Chonita has issues over the definition of “toxic” and feels a need for a proper list that outlines which chemical or chemical compounds would be considered “toxic”. Otherwise, any nation can call foul over another spilling expired milk into their backyard.
"Your mission should review Section 5."
~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement