[GA - DEFEATED] Repeal: “Asbestos Consumption, Disposal And Worker Protection”

Status
Not open for further replies.

Greater Cesnica

Resident
-
TNP Nation
Greater Nabeul
Discord
novemberstars#8888
ga.jpg

Repeal: “Asbestos Consumption, Disposal And Worker Protection”
Category: Repeal | GA #435
Proposed by: The Wallenburgian World Assembly Offices | Onsite Topic
Replacement: Asbestos Safety Mandate


General Assembly Resolution #435 “Asbestos Consumption, Disposal and Worker Protection” (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses - Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Acknowledging the several health concerns associated with exposure to asbestos crystals,

Cognizant, however, of the socioeconomic necessity of reliable and long-lasting housing and public infrastructure, which many member states could not possibly afford without the use of reinforced concrete,

Recognizing that one-size-fits-none mandates are hardly realistic for a membership of states with wildly varying dependence upon asbestos-reinforced concrete,

Alarmed at the suggestion that large fractions of the populations of member states should be deprived of homes, schools, and places of work due to the limitations of construction technology,

Believing that the membership of this Assembly can muster a well-considered and less reckless replacement to the target resolution,

The World Assembly hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #435 "Asbestos Consumption, Disposal and Worker Protection" for the following causes:
  1. The target's blanket ban on the production of asbestos and asbestos-reinforced materials will halt nearly all large-scale infrastructure construction and housing projects in many member nations, particularly those which do not enjoy the technological and logistical privileges assumed in the target.
  2. The target's unreasonably stringent standards for the demolition of buildings containing asbestos result in a requirement that buildings containing asbestos concrete be deconstructed brick-by-brick "in order to avoid creating asbestos dust" by small teams working in "short, non-continuous" shifts.
  3. The target's uncompromising attitude toward the use of asbestos acts in total disregard of what construction options are available to member states.
  4. By prohibiting the marketing of rooms or buildings containing asbestos within their concrete, the target will produce the effect that asbestos-reinforced buildings be gradually emptied of tenants, workers, and inhabitants, regardless of the actual health hazard the structure may present.
    1. Such prohibitions will inevitably result in mass homelessness, mass unemployment, and general economic ruin for any member nation that frequently relies upon asbestos to reinforce concrete structures.
    2. These effects will severely impede the capacity of member states to carry out their duties to those under their jurisdiction, including requirements by various preexisting World Assembly resolutions to provide for the basic needs of the public.
  5. Despite its extreme mandates, the target provides no clear requirements with regard to asbestos testing, leaving it to member states to determine whether, how often, and in what manner buildings of any given category must be tested for asbestos. As a result, the target is more effective in punishing any architects, engineers, and property holders foolish enough to disclose or investigate the existence of asbestos in a structure than in actually preventing asbestos from causing harm to public health.
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
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
81100
 
Last edited:
IFV

Overview
This proposal seeks to repeal GAR #435, "Asbestos Consumption, Disposal And Worker Protection", owing to the author's contention that it is disproportionately harmful towards the development aspirations of less technologically and logistically advanced member states, leads to needlessly prolonged deconstruction processes for asbestos-containing structures, leads to "mass homelessness, mass unemployment, and general economic ruin" for nations that rely on asbestos in building construction, and that the failure to provide "clear requirements" for the testing of asbestos in structures significantly increases the risk of non-compliance with impunity.

Recommendation
While we are sympathetic to the plight of asbestos-reliant developing nations, we cannot countenance the continued use of an objectively unsafe building material that leads to prolonged, torturous illness and death for scores of individuals exposed to asbestos either directly or indirectly via its continued structural use. Furthermore, we are unconvinced that the target Resolution's prohibition on the marketing and production of asbestos is necessarily applicable to already-constructed rooms and building. To be frank, we do not agree with the author's opinion regarding the threat posed by asbestos to human and environmental safety- in our view, when more structures contain asbestos, the greater the risk is to the general public.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against the General Assembly Resolution at vote, Repeal: “Asbestos Consumption, Disposal And Worker Protection”.
 
Last edited:
As mentioned on Discord, I am a bit concerned that the replacement hasn't had a lot of discussions. This seems a bit rushed to me. Against
 
Last edited:
I share the concern about the rush. Especially because of the general poor track record of replacements as of late (our commendation this week being a nice exception). It’s a no from me at this time.

Against
 
I'd like to also change my vote to AGAINST due to the concerns raised above.
 
(OOC) As mentioned on Discord, I happen to live in a jurisdiction which has (largely) completely banned asbestos, so I suspect it's coming down to voters living in jurisdictions where it is largely (or totally) banned, vs voters who live in places where it is not. The votes are not coming in over the science or technologies or costs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top