At Vote: On Hydraulic Fracturing [Complete] [Complete]

Sciongrad

Sciongrad

TNPer
Category: Free Trade | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Chester Pearson​

The World Assembly,

Defines hydraulic fracturing as the fracturing of a rock formation via pressurized liquid for the purposes of extracting hydrocarbon resources otherwise irrecoverable from said rock formation,

Noting recent attempts to place severe restrictions upon the process of hydraulic fracturing within member nations,

Believing the process of hydraulic fracturing an economically viable option to obtain hydrocarbon resources otherwise irrecoverable by conventional production methods,

Thus seeking to enact a sensible policy, which allows for the continued use of the hydraulic fracturing process within nations that wish to allow its continued usage,

The General Assembly hereby declares:

  1. Legislation upon the process of hydraulic fracturing shall be a matter of national purview,

  2. Member nations shall not place unnecessary restrictions or tariffs upon any hydrocarbon products solely on the basis of their production via the process of hydraulic fracturing,

  3. Member nations shall refrain from conducting hydraulic fracturing operations if they have the reasonable probability of affecting another nation, unless both nations agree to said hydraulic fracturing operations.
 
This makes absolutely no grammatical sense: "The World Assembly, defines, noting, believing, thus seeking, the General Assembly hereby declares," is not proper English. Resolutions are meant to be one very long sentence. Should an author choose to use a less accepted style, then they should at least attempt to make it read properly. Furthermore, while I can understand the author's frustration with the World Assembly's recent (haphazard) efforts at legislating on fracking, a blocker is clearly unnecessary. The entire purpose of a blocker is to prevent legislation - if the World Assembly has decisively smashed the last two attempts to restrict fracking, why is a blocker even necessary? As such, the ministry recommends a vote AGAINST.
 
Do you gentlemen mind explaining why you are against?
 
We still dont fully understand "fracking" and all the long term effects, fracking is bad for the environment, and is also extremely dangerous http://www.dangersoffracking.com/ . For now I am against all fracking practices. In my view, if a disaster were to occur it would effect more than just a single nation, while at the same time damaging the world environment which is something i believe the WA has a responsibility to protect. If we were to have heavy regulation I would be interested but giving countries free reign to frack is not ok in my book.
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top