[PASSED] Repeal: WA Environmental Council

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

After a recent spate of dreary days in the General Assembly spent yearning for debate, I decided I would peruse the international record of 'passed resolutions,' and see if I had missed anything that was horribly offensive to my palate. Well, needless to say I've found something that I must have not considered upon joining this delegation: GAR #42, "WA Environmental Council". Link to the resolution Here.

I'm sure you will get the gist of my arguments through reading this proposed repeal.

Repeal : WA Environmental Council
Author: Cool Egg Sandwich

APPLAUDING the aims of WA Environmental Council, and recognizing the benefits of environmental protection,

HOWEVER REALIZING there are several flaws with the resolution, including:

- It establishes the WAEC without clarifying specific goals or aims for the organization;
- It tasks the WAEC with “conduct[ing] research to identify and resolve environmental problems,” yet it grants the WAEC no legal authority to resolve environmental issues;
- It does not require member nations to assist WAEC research within their own country;
- It does not require member states to cooperate with the WAEC, nor does it require member states to adhere to suggestions and scientific reports issued by the WAEC;
- It stipulates that funding shall come only from the World Assembly, thereby allowing for the WAEC to potentially become ‘ineligible’ for funds should the General Fund be replaced by a different funding scheme;

BELIEVING that the shortcomings of this resolution far exceed the potential benefits,

DECLARING that a better resolution may be drafted to ensure legal protection of the environment;

The General Assembly hereby repeals “WA Environmental Council”.

Here is the updated version of the draft, crediting the Mouseian Ambassador with co-authorship:

Repeal: WA Environmental Council
Proposed by: Cool Egg Sandwich

The World Assembly,

APPLAUDS the intentions of WA Environmental Council, and recognizes the benefits of environmental protection,

REALIZES, however, there are several flaws with the resolution which make its efficacy limited, at best,

WORRIES about the goals and aims of the WAEC, as it was established without specifics being detailed within the resolution text,

UNDERSTANDS that member nations are not required to assist WAEC research, cooperate with the WAEC, nor comply with suggestions related to published scientific reports, which further undermines the WAEC,

RECOGNIZES that the WAEC has no legal authority to resolve environmental problems, and is therefore powerless to act in the face of environmental problems,

SUBMITS that the shortcomings of this resolution far exceed the potential benefits,

The General Assembly hereby repeals “WA Environmental Council”.

Co-authored by: Mousebumples

Edited the verb tense and re-worded the clauses a bit [thanks Mousey].

OOC: There is now a replacement draft in the GA Forums. A link to the replacement can be found here >>> Environmental Information Act.

Rgds.,

[Imperial Yamea]

We will take you up on your offer of earnest debate. We after reading both proposals feel that the only real claim that is supported within your repeal is that the WA Environmental Protection council resolution does not really define adequate funding, however many other resolutions would also call for direct funding from only the World Assembly funds.

[Grays Harbor]

As the WAEC has always been one of our least favorite resolutions, we would have no problem supporting any repeal attempt of this bit of enviro-lunacy. We don't much care for having their "scientists" (read: environmental activists) in our nation trying to micromanage our environmental policies.

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

We will take you up on your offer of earnest debate. We after reading both proposals feel that the only real claim that is supported within your repeal is that the WA Environmental Protection council resolution does not really define adequate funding, however many other resolutions would also call for direct funding from only the World Assembly funds.

I appreciate your response, yet I implore you to read GAR #42 again. The WAEC is established with no legal authority to dictate environmental policy in any manner. Furthermore, member nations aren't even required to cooperate, or adhere to their suggestions/reports regarding environmental policy.

It's literally a useless committee, that does absolutely nothing except study environmental concerns, and present the information to the World Assembly. With no legal authority, no clear goals for the organization, questionable funding, this resolution is utterly useless.

If you have any specific suggestions as per the draft I set forth, I would very much like to hear them.

Rgds.,

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

As the WAEC has always been one of our least favorite resolutions, we would have no problem supporting any repeal attempt of this bit of enviro-lunacy. We don't much care for having their "scientists" (read: environmental activists) in our nation trying to micromanage our environmental policies.

Well, the funny thing is you don't even have to cooperate with the WAEC while they conduct scientific examination/observation/study within your nation. The resolution might be the flimsiest, do-nothing, float by on altruism resolution I have seen in my days (granted not many) in this Assembly.

As an aside, if the Ambassador from Grays Harbor has any constructive criticism on how I might improve the arguments within this repeal, I would very much like to hear it.

Rgds.,

[Grays Harbor]

Well, our suggestion would be to have just one line:

1.) ITS FLUFFY TOUCHY-FEELY ENVIROWACKO GOBBLEDEEGOOK! CONSIGN IT TO THE SHREDDER!

But we fear that argument may not be the most diplomatic available.

[Imperial Yamea]

We will take you up on your offer of earnest debate. We after reading both proposals feel that the only real claim that is supported within your repeal is that the WA Environmental Protection council resolution does not really define adequate funding, however many other resolutions would also call for direct funding from only the World Assembly funds.

I appreciate your response, yet I implore you to read GAR #42 again. The WAEC is established with no legal authority to dictate environmental policy in any manner. Furthermore, member nations aren't even required to cooperate, or adhere to their suggestions/reports regarding environmental policy.

It's literally a useless committee, that does absolutely nothing except study environmental concerns, and present the information to the World Assembly. With no legal authority, no clear goals for the organization, questionable funding, this resolution is utterly useless.

If you have any specific suggestions as per the draft I set forth, I would very much like to hear them.

Rgds.,

We actually agree with you that they don't have any power to implement any such environmental legislation onto the member nations. Maybe you could remove the clause about funding though.

Yours
Duchess Sarah

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

We actually agree with you that they don't have any power to implement any such environmental legislation onto the member nations. Maybe you could remove the clause about funding though.

Yours
Duchess Sarah

Well, as I am sure you may have seen, one of our fellow Ambassadors is drafting a 'placeholder' in the event that the WA General Fund is repealed. You can view the debate surrounding this proposed General Fund replacement Here.

If the General Fund were to be repealed, and Mr. Koopman's draft [or some form like it] were to be implemented, then WAEC would technically be ineligible for receiving funds, as per its stipulation that no outside funding shall be used to fund the WAEC; such a statement could be a death knell for the council, provided the General Fund is replaced.

I would prefer to leave the clause about funding in this repeal.

Rgds.,

[Moronist Decisions]

We actually agree with you that they don't have any power to implement any such environmental legislation onto the member nations. Maybe you could remove the clause about funding though.

Yours
Duchess Sarah

Well, as I am sure you may have seen, one of our fellow Ambassadors is drafting a 'placeholder' in the event that the WA General Fund is repealed. You can view the debate surrounding this proposed General Fund replacement Here.

If the General Fund were to be repealed, and Mr. Koopman's draft [or some form like it] were to be implemented, then WAEC would technically be ineligible for receiving funds, as per its stipulation that no outside funding shall be used to fund the WAEC; such a statement could be a death knell for the council, provided the General Fund is replaced.

I would prefer to leave the clause about funding in this repeal.

Rgds.,

I think the funding clause is unnecessary. I would read that clause more broadly, that it be a source of funding directed through the mechanisms that the WA is funded. Plus, it doesn't look like the repeal of WAGF is going through anytime soon.

While I laud the intention of the authors of the original proposal, I do see significant weaknesses in the WAEC work and note its ineffectual nature. We support this repeal with the proviso that a similar resolution with improvements may be prepared.

[Mesogirian WA Mission]

If one were opposed to having a WA Environmental Council actually meddling in their national affairs, wouldn't it be better to leave this toothless resolution in place? As opposed to repealing it and possibly replacing it with something with actual enforceable power?

[Glen-Rhodes]

- It establishes the WAEC without clarifying specific goals or aims for the organization;

a) The WAEC shall conduct research to identify and resolve environmental problems including but not limited to: climate change, pollution, depletion of natural resources, and natural disasters, in association with experts in the respective field. Scientists shall be employed from around the world to produce detailed accounts and records for the WAEC to help them issue advice to the international community

- It tasks the WAEC with “conduct[ing] research to identify and resolve environmental problems,” yet it grants the WAEC no legal authority to resolve environmental issues;

You are mistaking a bug for a feature.

- It does not require member nations to assist WAEC research within their own country;

This is bad because...? Not all member states are capable of assisting with research.

- It does not require member states to cooperate with the WAEC, nor does it require member states to adhere to suggestions and scientific reports issued by the WAEC;

Again, bug for feature. And as a caveat to your statement: member states aren't allowed to prevent the WAEC from monitoring environments within their borders.

- It stipulates that funding shall come only from the World Assembly, thereby allowing for the WAEC to potentially become ‘ineligible’ for funds should the General Fund be replaced by a different funding scheme;

The General Fund only consolidates funding operations. If it were to be repealed, the funds would still be gathered through whatever way the Secretariat finds appropriate. In other words, if an operation requires funding, it will receive funding, regardless of any explicit funding mechanisms.

Overall, your repeal is poor. The WAEC is not and was never meant to be a panacea. It's only because you assume it is that you find faults within the resolution. Instead of repealing it, you could, you know, write some environmental protection laws yourself.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Parti Ouvrier]

This somehow elicits my indifference.

Envoy CJ

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

- It establishes the WAEC without clarifying specific goals or aims for the organization;

a) The WAEC shall conduct research to identify and resolve environmental problems including but not limited to: climate change, pollution, depletion of natural resources, and natural disasters, in association with experts in the respective field. Scientists shall be employed from around the world to produce detailed accounts and records for the WAEC to help them issue advice to the international community

I fail to see how "identyify[ing] and resolv[ing] environmental problems" is specific. How exactly will the WAEC 'resolve' these problems, given the fact that they have no legal authority? Furthermore, if their reports/suggestions have no legal importance, is their commission really worthwhile?

- It tasks the WAEC with “conduct[ing] research to identify and resolve environmental problems,” yet it grants the WAEC no legal authority to resolve environmental issues;

You are mistaking a bug for a feature.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say, Dr. Castro. Are you trying to say that the WAEC having absolutely no authority is a good thing? All the supposed 'goals' that aren't clearly explained will never be met without some sort of authority on the part of the WAEC.

- It does not require member nations to assist WAEC research within their own country;

This is bad because...? Not all member states are capable of assisting with research.

I understand your point regarding member nations who are incapable of assisting the WAEC; however, I feel a resolution requiring at least minimal levels of compliance would be more conducive to a program that has the potential to actually benefit the environment.

- It does not require member states to cooperate with the WAEC, nor does it require member states to adhere to suggestions and scientific reports issued by the WAEC;

Again, bug for feature. And as a caveat to your statement: member states aren't allowed to prevent the WAEC from monitoring environments within their borders.

Thanks for the clarification regarding member states 'obstructing' WAEC environmental studies within their nation; Again, I must say that a resolution with some 'teeth' would be much preferred to the current WAEC.

- It stipulates that funding shall come only from the World Assembly, thereby allowing for the WAEC to potentially become ‘ineligible’ for funds should the General Fund be replaced by a different funding scheme;

The General Fund only consolidates funding operations. If it were to be repealed, the funds would still be gathered through whatever way the Secretariat finds appropriate. In other words, if an operation requires funding, it will receive funding, regardless of any explicit funding mechanisms.

Overall, your repeal is poor. The WAEC is not and was never meant to be a panacea. It's only because you assume it is that you find faults within the resolution. Instead of repealing it, you could, you know, write some environmental protection laws yourself.

Well, Dr. Castro, I never claimed that the WAEC resolution was meant to be a panacea, or anything of the like. On the contrary, I believe this particular resolution could stand to be re-reworked. Ideally, I would like to allow the opportunity for a replacement of WAEC to be drafted, but I doubt my areas of expertise would be favorable to a piece of environmental legislation, as you suggested.

Final clarification: I do not assume that the resolution needs to be a 'cure-all' for environmental protection, I merely believe that a much better resolution could be drafted, one that actually has the potential to 'protect' the environment.

Rgds.,

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

Full support. Down with the environment!

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

Full support. Down with the environment!

That's not exactly the sentiment we had in mind, but nonetheless we appreciate your support.

[Darenjo]

The pendulum of indecision is currently swinging towards opposition. Sorry, but I don't think I can support your repeal (not to mention that I would be all for an environmental council with legal authority).

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

The pendulum of indecision is currently swinging towards opposition. Sorry, but I don't think I can support your repeal (not to mention that I would be all for an environmental council with legal authority).

Currently in the works is a proposed 'replacement' for the WAEC. A draft is still in brainstorming stages, but something will be posted when it is appropriate.

Rgds.,

[Glen-Rhodes]

I fail to see how "identyify[ing] and resolv[ing] environmental problems" is specific.

a) The WAEC shall conduct research to identify and resolve environmental problems including but not limited to: climate change, pollution, depletion of natural resources, and natural disasters, in association with experts in the respective field. Scientists shall be employed from around the world to produce detailed accounts and records for the WAEC to help them issue advice to the international community

How exactly will the WAEC 'resolve' these problems, given the fact that they have no legal authority? Furthermore, if their reports/suggestions have no legal importance, is their commission really worthwhile?

Science has a way of suggesting effective policy measures. If you want to make these policy measures mandatory, then write a resolution making them mandatory. It is not necessary to repeal this resolution, unless you simply do not agree with environmentalism.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say, Dr. Castro. Are you trying to say that the WAEC having absolutely no authority is a good thing? All the supposed 'goals' that aren't clearly explained will never be met without some sort of authority on the part of the WAEC.

I'm saying that the Council was never meant to be some sort of world-wide environmental policy-making body. It was created to provide solutions for member states. It was not created to be the solution. The problem you suggest is not a defect, but a fully intended characteristic.

Again, I must say that a resolution with some 'teeth' would be much preferred to the current WAEC.

Again, write one. The resolution does not forbid you to do so or impede you in any way.

Well, Dr. Castro, I never claimed that the WAEC resolution was meant to be a panacea, or anything of the like.

But you did, considering the arguments you've given for the repeal.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

a) The WAEC shall conduct research to identify and resolve environmental problems including but not limited to: climate change, pollution, depletion of natural resources, and natural disasters, in association with experts in the respective field. Scientists shall be employed from around the world to produce detailed accounts and records for the WAEC to help them issue advice to the international community

All you've done is bold the different types of environmental problems that the WAEC doesn't define how it will resolve. Again, resolve is the operative word within the legislation and the WAEC has no authority to actually resolve any issues.

How exactly will the WAEC 'resolve' these problems, given the fact that they have no legal authority? Furthermore, if their reports/suggestions have no legal importance, is their commission really worthwhile?

Science has a way of suggesting effective policy measures. If you want to make these policy measures mandatory, then write a resolution making them mandatory. It is not necessary to repeal this resolution, unless you simply do not agree with environmentalism.

It has nothing to do with disagreeing with environmentalism, and I resent that you would even suggest it. Clearly defined within this repeal are my arguments against the WAEC, I only have support for environmental responsibility. The point remains, creating another committee via resolution with similar goals, yet actual authority, would be considered duplication, would it not?

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say, Dr. Castro. Are you trying to say that the WAEC having absolutely no authority is a good thing? All the supposed 'goals' that aren't clearly explained will never be met without some sort of authority on the part of the WAEC.

I'm saying that the Council was never meant to be some sort of world-wide environmental policy-making body. It was created to provide solutions for member states. It was not created to be the solution. The problem you suggest is not a defect, but a fully intended characteristic.

I apologize, Dr. Castro, but I cannot support the WAEC in its current form, and I feel that reform is the best medicine for it. Adding on to international law to improve upon a bad resolution should not become a practice of this Assembly; instead poorly written laws should be replaced.

Again, I must say that a resolution with some 'teeth' would be much preferred to the current WAEC.

Again, write one. The resolution does not forbid you to do so or impede you in any way.

As I said above, unless I am mistaken it would be illegal to create a 'more powerful', effective version of the WAEC without first replacing the WAEC, itself.

Well, Dr. Castro, I never claimed that the WAEC resolution was meant to be a panacea, or anything of the like.

But you did, considering the arguments you've given for the repeal.

Again, I didn't. Just because I believe that a resolution is horribly inefficient and prone to complete uselessness has no bearing on whether or not I believe the authors originally intended for the WAEC to be a 'cure-all' for the environment. It is obvious by reading GAR #42 that it was clearly not meant to be such. I apologize if my arguments somehow implied that I thought the WAEC was supposed to save the world...

Rgds.,

[Glen-Rhodes]

All you've done is bold the different types of environmental problems that the WAEC doesn't define how it will resolve. Again, resolve is the operative word within the legislation and the WAEC has no authority to actually resolve any issues.

You said that there were no specifics in the resolution. I pointed otherwise. You are now switching goalposts. However, I have explained already why your "resolve" problem is not actually a problem.

The point remains, creating another committee via resolution with similar goals, yet actual authority, would be considered duplication, would it not?

No, it wouldn't! Right now, the WAEC does a lot of research and makes policy suggestions. You can write a resolution empowering the WAEC to implement those policy suggestions and there would be no overlap. Nothing in the resolution says that the WAEC is never to be allowed that authority. Also, I would suggest that you utilize the WAEC, rather than creating a new committee that would have to do duplicate research.

Of course, you would probably want to be issue-specific in your drafts, rather than allowing the WAEC to implement broad environmental policy.

I apologize, Dr. Castro, but I cannot support the WAEC in its current form, and I feel that reform is the best medicine for it. Adding on to international law to improve upon a bad resolution should not become a practice of this Assembly; instead poorly written laws should be replaced.

Again, it is not "poorly written." Your actual argument is that the WAEC cannot implement its policy suggestions. Like I said, it was never intended to have that authority. And at the risk of repeating myself, if you want to give it that authority, repealing this resolution is wholly unnecessary.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

All you've done is bold the different types of environmental problems that the WAEC doesn't define how it will resolve. Again, resolve is the operative word within the legislation and the WAEC has no authority to actually resolve any issues.

You said that there were no specifics in the resolution. I pointed otherwise. You are now switching goalposts. However, I have explained already why your "resolve" problem is not actually a problem.

I'm just going to address this comment, as we are merely going back and forth on the other points. I am not "switching goal posts" as you say; my stance this entire time has been that there were not specific goals/aims for the WAEC. I would point you to the first bullet-point in my original draft.

In any event, I see your point regarding a resolution to expand the authority of the WAEC; however, I feel the best course of action would be a repeal [obviously].

While we may not agree, we certainly thank you for your comments, Dr. Castro.

[Glen-Rhodes]

In any event, I see your point regarding a resolution to expand the authority of the WAEC; however, I feel the best course of action would be a repeal [obviously].

I'm not at all certain why it is obvious and indeed it is anything but obvious. Repealing the resolution would actually be an impediment to expanding the authority the Environmental Council. The current resolution provides for research and policy suggestion. What you want is to provide for the authority to deliver environmental policy mandates. They are two completely separate issues that can be addressed by separate resolutions.

The thing is, though: you will need research anyways, so repealing the research resolution simply means that in addition to crafting a mandate, you will need to re-craft a research insitutition. It's nonsensical. And, in case you have not considered this, anybody voting for the repeal likely does not want a stronger version. So, repealing the resolution is simply shooting yourself in the foot, especially after you've been told that a repeal is unnecessary.

At this point, you are simply trying to repeal for the sake of repealing, rather than for any substantive reason, and the end result will be a net negative for international environmentalism.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

In any event, I see your point regarding a resolution to expand the authority of the WAEC; however, I feel the best course of action would be a repeal [obviously].

I'm not at all certain why it is obvious and indeed it is anything but obvious. Repealing the resolution would actually be an impediment to expanding the authority the Environmental Council. The current resolution provides for research and policy suggestion. What you want is to provide for the authority to deliver environmental policy mandates. They are two completely separate issues that can be addressed by separate resolutions. At this point, you are simply trying to repeal for the sake of repealing, rather than for any substantive reason.

- Dr. B. Castro

Ahh, you misunderstood my intent with that statement, Dr. Castro. I meant that to clarify that it was obvious that my feelings were inclined toward a repeal, rather than expansion of authority. I'm sorry if I may have been unclear, but I never meant to say that it was obvious that a repeal was necessarily the best course of action.

Rgds.,

[Glen-Rhodes]

Ahh, you misunderstood my intent with that statement, Dr. Castro. I meant that to clarify that it was obvious that my feelings were inclined toward a repeal, rather than expansion of authority. I'm sorry if I may have been unclear, but I never meant to say that it was obvious that a repeal necessarily was the best course of action.

You're saying that you think it is the best course of action. I'm assuming that because you think that much, you think it's the best course of action to go forward with a repeal. I'm not certain your editorial correction has changed anything...

- Dr. B. Castro

OOC: P.s. I revised my post.

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

You clearly misunderstand. I meant to say that my feelings on the matter were obvious, as in everyone could clearly see what they were by reading this debate. I never meant to say it was obvious that a repeal was the best course of action. I would appreciate it if you would stop falsely characterizing my statements, Dr. Castro.