[SUBMITTED] Repeal "Restrictions On Hydraulic Fracturing"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Repeal "Restrictions On Hydraulic Fracturing"
Category: Repeal

---

This august World Assembly,

Reminding itself that legislation passed by the World Assembly cannot be amended or changed, only repealed, and that any correction of the problems noted in the target resolution would first require passage of a repeal,

Believing that hydraulic fracturing will take place on land that is inhabited, as it is currently impossible to fully automate the fuel extraction process,

Concluding therefore, that section 2 (which, among other things and with conditions, prohibits the use of hydraulic fracturing in inhabited areas) effectively applies in all areas where hydraulic fracturing can feasibly be done,

Horrified that in many member nations, many rural citizens are trapped in their homes by financial constraints, unable to raise the funds to move elsewhere, and that their being trapped in rural areas with few services and opportunities predisposes them to poverty,

Noting that even where hydraulic fracturing liquids are improperly disposed, land-owners are granted significant financial rewards to allow extraction on their land,

Concerned that this near-ban on hydraulic fracturing uniquely harms rural communities, which (due to the realities of land holdings) are the most likely to contain mineral wealth, and damage local economies that lack other productive industries, and

Objecting to the disparate impact of the target resolution, which dooms many rural people to being unable to find themselves a way out of local impoverishment, hereby:

Repeals GA 417 “Restrictions On Hydraulic Fracturing”.

---

Oh yea, forgot about this one. But I should put it in this last proposal in this series that I dub Super Tuesday™ : inb4 illegitimate complaints about "spam".

[Wallenburg]

Against.

[Isla Bucanero]

Really? Suing companies that poison them is not a reliable way for the rural poor to escape poverty. If you said that you just wanted to help energy companies line their pockets at least you'd be honest.

[United Massachusetts]

Really? Suing companies that poison them is not a reliable way for the rural poor to escape poverty. If you said that you just wanted to help energy companies line their pockets at least you'd be honest.

The Imperial Delegation appears to believe that it is tolerable to allow the poisoning of water to lift the rural poor out of poverty. Sickening.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Do people on NS not know what land property rights are or how they work? (Rhetorical) Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad infernos. That’s why people get money.

The Massachusetts delegation seems to believe that leaving people to suffer in poverty is some moral good. The world should not be Mother Theresa’s houses of lingering death. Sickening, especially when deficiencies in rural health coverage are undeniable.

[Isla Bucanero]

I bet your heart just bleeds for them. Nothing helps the health of people more than fracking (that's sarcasm by the way I can be smug in parenthetical too).

[United Massachusetts]

Do people on NS not know what land property rights are or how they work? (Rhetorical) Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad infernos. That’s why people get money.

The Massachusetts delegation seems to believe that leaving people to suffer in poverty is some moral good. The world should not be Mother Theresa’s houses of lingering death. Sickening, especially when deficiencies in rural health coverage are undeniable.

I don't think selling the soul of rural communities to multinational corporations pursuing a dangerous business is a good way to life holks out of poverty. Fracking isn't the only way to combat poverty in rural communities.

Furthermore, Quality in Health Services and Minimum Standard of Living Act are much better ways of fighting poverty than, you know, polluting groundwater.

[United Massachusetts]

I bet your heart just bleeds for them. Nothing helps the health of people more than fracking (that's sarcasm by the way I can be smug in parenthetical too).

Truly! They care so deeply for the plight of the poor, that they'll make the rural poor rich quick by fracking! Nevermind the risk to the most sustainable industry of rural areas, agriculture, by polluted tapwater!

[Wallenburg]

I bet your heart just bleeds for them. Nothing helps the health of people more than fracking (that's sarcasm by the way I can be smug in parenthetical too).

Truly! They care so deeply for the plight of the poor, that they'll make the rural poor rich quick by fracking! Nevermind the risk to the most sustainable industry of rural areas, agriculture, by polluted tapwater!

As we all know, fracking fluid makes for great fertilizer, and even better drinking water!

[Sciongrad]

OOC: I mean, fracking has been the single greatest factor in making coal, which is significantly more detrimental to the environment than natural gas, uncompetitive. It could be that you roleplay as a rich nation that can easily subsidize renewable energy and not have to worry about tradeoffs between development and environmental degradation, but that is, frankly, elitist. Many poor nations have to rely on fossil fuels for development because they're cheaper and more readily available, and at least LNG is the least environmentally detrimental. There's much more nuance to environmental policy than "does this hurt the environment at all in any way?"

[Isla Bucanero]

OOC: I mean, fracking has been the single greatest factor in making coal, which is significantly more detrimental to the environment than natural gas, uncompetitive. It could be that you roleplay as a rich nation that can easily subsidize renewable energy and not have to worry about tradeoffs between development and environmental degradation, but that is, frankly, elitist. Many poor nations have to rely on fossil fuels for development because they're cheaper and more readily available, and at least LNG is the least environmentally detrimental. There's much more nuance to environmental policy than "does this hurt the environment at all in any way?"

You're not necessarily wrong, but IA's argument isn't that poorer nations can't afford green energy. It's that the presence of the fracking industry will help rural communities out of poverty by paying them when they destroy the land. Even if they were arguing that I'd still say the world assembly would be better off subsidizing green energy for poorer nations.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Advocating that landowners sell drilling rights to energy companies as a means of reducing poverty is like advocating that students in underperforming school districts take vouchers to enroll in private schools as a means of improving public education. The idea is completely absurd. We would oppose this repeal even if it didn't discount the deleterious effects of industrial waste on municipal water supplies. Against."

---

OOC: On reflection I'm not 100% sure this isn't an Honest Mistake. The target prohibits fracking only where it:

a. poses a demonstrably significant threat of contamination thereto,

b. harms the water resources demonstrably neccessary to ensure the health of local communities,

c. and/or poses significant risk of other strongly detrimental health effects, according to the World Health Authority, to said populations of sapient beings,

But the repeal claims:

Concluding therefore, that section 2 (which, among other things and with conditions, prohibits the use of hydraulic fracturing in inhabited areas) effectively applies in all areas where hydraulic fracturing can feasibly be done,

...

Concerned that this near-ban on hydraulic fracturing...

This is very close to the line. "Prohibits" is certainly too strong a word by itself; and this phrasing "among other things and with conditions" is a fig leaf at best. It remains an open question for me whether that leaf is big enough to cover the mischaracterization underneath.

[Kranostav]

"Advocating that landowners sell drilling rights to energy companies as a means of reducing poverty is like advocating that students in underperforming school districts take vouchers to enroll in private schools as a means of improving public education. The idea is completely absurd. We would oppose this repeal even if it didn't discount the deleterious effects of industrial waste on municipal water supplies. Against."

---

OOC: On reflection I'm not 100% sure this isn't an Honest Mistake. The target prohibits fracking only where it:

a. poses a demonstrably significant threat of contamination thereto,

b. harms the water resources demonstrably neccessary to ensure the health of local communities,

c. and/or poses significant risk of other strongly detrimental health effects, according to the World Health Authority, to said populations of sapient beings,

But the repeal claims:

Concluding therefore, that section 2 (which, among other things and with conditions, prohibits the use of hydraulic fracturing in inhabited areas) effectively applies in all areas where hydraulic fracturing can feasibly be done,

...

Concerned that this near-ban on hydraulic fracturing...

This is very close to the line. "Prohibits" is certainly too strong a word by itself; and this phrasing "among other things and with conditions" is a fig leaf at best. It remains an open question for me whether that leaf is big enough to cover the mischaracterization underneath.

I don't believe an honest mistake argument can be made here with "among other things and with conditions" being included in the repeal. That statement in of itself allows for everything else to be included while maintaining his general aim of the repeal. Also, "this near-ban" is a rather arbitrary assessment of the proposal that doesn't lend itself towards any solid conclusion.

[Araraukar]

Horrified that in many member nations, many rural citizens are trapped in their homes by financial constraints, unable to raise the funds to move elsewhere, and that their being trapped in rural areas with few services and opportunities predisposes them to poverty,

OOC: Any nation actually in that situation (healthcare, education and basic living requirements spring to mind) is in violation of at least a couple of existing resolutions.

Sickening, especially when deficiencies in rural health coverage are undeniable.

OOC: Again, that nation would be in violation of existing resolutions already.

OOC: Many poor nations have to rely on fossil fuels for development because they're cheaper and more readily available, and at least LNG is the least environmentally detrimental.

OOC: Fracking tends to be done by oil companies which tend to not give a shit about the poor nation in question, and care even less about the local communities which sit on top/next to their fracking sites.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: Fracking tends to be done by oil companies which tend to not give a shit about the poor nation in question, and care even less about the local communities which sit on top/next to their fracking sites.

OOC: Doesn't really matter whether big oil companies care at all about poor people. It matters which type of fuel is cheapest, and it poor countries don't pour all their money into wind turbines for a reason.

[WA Kitty Kops]

OOC: Doesn't really matter whether big oil companies care at all about poor people. It matters which type of fuel is cheapest, and it poor countries don't pour all their money into wind turbines for a reason.

OOC: No, but IA's original arguments were based on the local communities not getting to benefit off of whatever frackable (my brain still tries to replace "frack" with a swearword) resource their village/town/farmhouse happens to be on/near. Oil companies doing the actual fracking don't give a fuck about the village/town/farmhouse/local community or what happens to it after the oil company has gotten what it came for.

I know I'm not on Araraukar but I'm too tired to care. My brother's getting married on Saturday and I've been baking. Indoors. With a fucking heatwave going on. No AC of any kind either. At least it's supposed to rain on the day of the wedding, and that's considered a good thing by everyone involved! Shows what kind of weird, weird summer we've had.

...and also having thunder on the wedding day apparently means a happy marriage according to some old belief.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Doesn't really matter whether big oil companies care at all about poor people. It matters which type of fuel is cheapest, and it poor countries don't pour all their money into wind turbines for a reason.

OOC: No, but IA's original arguments were based on the local communities not getting to benefit off of whatever frackable (my brain still tries to replace "frack" with a swearword) resource their village/town/farmhouse happens to be on/near. Oil companies doing the actual fracking don't give a fuck about the village/town/farmhouse/local community or what happens to it after the oil company has gotten what it came for.

I know I'm not on Araraukar but I'm too tired to care. My brother's getting married on Saturday and I've been baking. Indoors. With a fucking heatwave going on. No AC of any kind either. At least it's supposed to rain on the day of the wedding, and that's considered a good thing by everyone involved! Shows what kind of weird, weird summer we've had.

...and also having thunder on the wedding day apparently means a happy marriage according to some old belief.

OOC: No, but they can't take the resources without compensation. Even poor compensation is compensation.

[Araraukar]

OOC: No, but they can't take the resources without compensation. Even poor compensation is compensation.

OOC: The repeal says "significant financial rewards" which tends to not be the case anywhere in the RL world.

[Bears Armed]

OOC
GenSec is now having a private discussion about the legality of this proposal.