[GA - Failed] The Amelioration Of Maritime Conditions

Status
Not open for further replies.
TlomzKrano

TlomzKrano

Just a blob chasing cars
-
-
-
TNP Nation
Kranostav
Discord
Tlomz

ga.jpg

The Amelioration Of Maritime Conditions
Category: Environmental | Industry Affected: All Businesses - Mild
Proposed by: Radical Republic | Onsite Topic​
Recognizing the vast amount of pollutants in the hydrosphere.

Defining a maritime pollutant as a pollutant that affects the hydrosphere or on its organisms. These pollutants are limited to substance added directly to the hyrdosphere through methods like dumping or runoff. Airborne pollutants are exempt.

Wishing to monitor and record the sources and track the severity of pollutants in the hydrosphere.

Hereby:

  1. Requires all governmental organizations to keep a record of any and all pollutants added by them to the hydrosphere.

  2. Encourages governments to legislate private corporations to keep a record themselves.

  3. Requires the record to be accessible to anyone who wishes to view it. This includes other governments or citizens.

  4. Mandating that member nations above the recorded international average must reduce their maritime pollutant production 5% by the end of the fiscal year.
Click to expand...
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!
 
Last edited:
Against,

Mandate is super unreasonable. Also the international average seems to be fairly arbitrary and not inclusive at all to different tech levels.

Feels too short as well, just all around against.
 
Against. I agree with Tlomz, I'm generally against any proposal with hard figures in them.
 
Praetor:
Against.

This is a new criticism from you.
Click to expand...
Given the topic that proposal covered the bases it set out to cover. I somehow feel you had that link saved waiting for this so Im sorry I had to disappoint :P

But this proposal sets out to cover a very broad topic and falls short on areas it should better cover.

Edit: wow I used 'cover' way too many times. Im getting tired clearly. But what I mean is the resolution you linked actually satisfied what it intended to legislate on. This proposal does not and leaves open holes that could in theory be addressed in a short amount of words, but regardless it doesnt get the job done.
 
Last edited:
TlomzKrano:
Given the topic that proposal covered the bases it set out to cover. I somehow feel you had that link saved waiting for this so Im sorry I had to disappoint :P

But this proposal sets out to cover a very broad topic and falls short on areas it should better cover.
Click to expand...
I have a list of stuff that I anticipate people will later take the opposition point on to pull out for when they do. :P

In that case, say that. Don't say that it "feels too short". Say that "given the breadth of this topic, I feel that this proposal does not adequately cover the areas it should".

In any case, that's an acceptable response. But I'll be watching everyone else. :ADN:
 
Against. "recorded international average" is not a good metric. Everyone could be contributing like 100 kilotons of pollutants a year, but according to this law, they're all good and legal. Besides, recorded international average... of what?

Nitpicks:
"...the hyrdosphere..." - the hydrosphere
"....pollutant production 5% by...." - pollutant production by 5% by
 
Against. Expecting that countries with lower tech levels get pollutant levels decreased by 5% without any help seems ridiculous. Also, usage of the international average as a benchmark seems like a joke too, especially if the benchmark is way higher than acceptable.

Its lack of depth in content kills any hope of me supporting the bill. (I mean if I went against Ban on Sterilisations do you expect me to support this?)
 
Last edited:
Doesn't get into any real depth or detail and doesn't accurately address its honorable and broad cause. This should have just been redrafted, I've no idea why this got pushed to vote. Against.
 
Against. The resolution appears at once to be both far too broad ("any and all"), such that it is highly unlikely that a nation would be able to comply with it, and too narrow, given its mandatory recording provision applies only to pollutants of the governments themselves.

Further, given that the mandatory recording applies only to governments, it would seem that there would be disparate impacts of clause 4, in that nations that take the further step to comply with clause 2 would be expected to appear to have a higher level of pollutants while nations that do not (which one might think would seem to have the least regard for the risk of pollution and so the ones most requiring remedial action) would appear to have a lower level and escape the effect of the clause. I may be wrong in my reading, but that is certainly how it appears to me.

EDIT: Clicked post too soon by accident.
EDIT2: Singular v plural.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top