[GA—IN QUEUE] Removing Toxins from Infrastructure

Jinkies

Jinkies

Professional Gnome Wrangler
-
-
-
TNP Nation
Mackinac Island
Discord
solringen
ga.jpg

Removing Toxins from Infrastructure
Category: Environmental | Area of Effect: Manufacturing
Proposed by: Untecna | Onsite Topic​
The General Assembly,

Recognizing the abundance of several toxins in infrastructure,

Concerned with the safety risks of these toxins towards people and the environment,

Hereby:

  1. Defines a toxin as any material which, under the circumstances in which it is present, creates a significant risk of injury or illness, by virtue of its biological impact, to lifeforms that come into contact with it, or which degrades the safety or habitability of the surrounding environment at a faster rate than the surrounding environment can clear it or render it harmless,

  2. Prohibits the further production, sale, or implementation of any piece of infrastructure which contains materials known to be toxins by member nations,

  3. Mandates that member nations implement plans to phase out existing infrastructure which contains toxins, and that, prior to removal, any infrastructure containing toxins be marked with appropriate signage or stickers,

  4. Further mandates that all removed infrastructure containing toxins be properly disposed of, with procedures established for the steps of the process,

  5. Further mandates that all sites where toxins were or are present be monitored for environmental effects, and that any areas containing more than the known limit for the given toxins in air, water, and/or soil immediately receive cleanup efforts.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!
ForAgainstAbstainPresent
0000
Click to expand...
 
Against. The issue (and I can't believe I already posted about it numerous times forumside, this is getting rather tiresome) - the definition of "to lifeforms that come into contact with it" (clause 1) means if I fall to the ground and accidentally eat asphalt (or gravel), and I die from choking on that piece of gravel (or from falling down and hitting the rock in the head), no roads may use asphalt or gravel. Etc etc. I also use rust from steel as an example. The entire issue with the resolution is in the definition (clause 1), the rest actually are pretty mundate stuff.

Edit: the definition is tricky enough that I think they should have tried to draft that definition watertight.
 
Last edited:
For

Simone thank you for your reasons, and correct me if I understand it wrong, but in clause 1 it mentions when it creates a significant risk of injury or illness. I don’t see how a road has a significant risk of injury or illness.
 
Lucasoland:
For

Simone thank you for your reasons, and correct me if I understand it wrong, but in clause 1 it mentions when it creates a significant risk of injury or illness. I don’t see how a road has a significant risk of injury or illness.
Click to expand...

Basically because the wording is "under the circumstances in which it is present, creates a significant risk of injury or illness", the fact that I fall down, hit my head on the road and then "come into contact with the road" and die from the brain aneurysm would count.

There are clauses in accident insurance contracts where certain forms of accidents are excluded, but this is not what has been used here, and I still think even if you use those clauses, it would not be tight enough.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top