NationStates | Dispatch | GA Recommendation Archive: Vote AGAINST 'Long-term Storage of Produced Waste'

Dispatch → Meta → Reference

by The South Pacifican Government of Office of WA Legislation. 3 years 7 days ago. 13 reads.

GA Recommendation Archive: Vote AGAINST 'Long-term Storage of Produced Waste' | OWL

—

——

—

·
—

— —

—
·

'Long-term Storage of Produced Waste'
·

·
—.

.—
·

Background Information

Proposal title: 'Long-term Storage of Produced Waste'
Author:

Molopovia
Purpose: To require private businesses to acquire certified storage bunkers or halls for problematic waste they may produce.

Links

On-site drafting forum thread
Join the discussion on OWL's message board!

Vote .Against.
·

The Office's Analysis

While certainly of good intent at surface ‒ trying to protect citizens from toxic waste discharged by factories by requiring businesses to store those in specially-constructed and certified facilities ‒ the at-vote resolution "Long-term Storage of Produced Waste" is simultaneously plagued by an overly heavy-handed one-size-fits-all approach and terribly vague definitions, which ultimately hinder an effective execution of its mandates. Additionally being unconventionally and inconsistently formatted, as well as containing some grammar mistakes, the proposal is in serious need of a complete rewrite including refined mandates in order to live up to the goals it sets out in its preamble. Thus, OWL recommends a vote AGAINST the at-vote resolution, "Long-term Storage of Produced Waste".

Supplementary Opinions
·

·
—FOR— | —AGAINST—
·

For

From TSP Citizens

The Langburn Islands is a legislator of TSP. They posted this on their OWL vote:

The Langburn Islands wrote:

The disposal of waste is an issue that transcends national boundaries. In order to protect the environment, we must ensure that the international community acts swiftly to ensure that all produced waste is disposed of in a safe, clean and environmentally friendly manner.

From the World

At the time of writing, OWL had not found a solid opinion for the resolution from the rest of the world. You can make your own opinion heard by posting it on the Regional Message Board of the WA Voting Center!

Against

From TSP Citizens

Tepertopia is the OWL Director in TSP. They posted this on their OWL vote:

Tepertopia wrote:

While this proposal, unlike another one that is currently at vote here, at least uses the list tag, it's still breaking with a rather large amount of GA formatting practices and contains some grammatical mistakes. Besides, the mandates of this proposal might be some of the most vague ones I've ever seen. "Measures must be taken [...] to reduce waste discharge" - what measures? How much reduction (a reduction by a gram is still a reduction)? Who certifies the facilities? This just demands to be bent by nations until it fits their interests and undermines the original intent. As it stands, it's just not in a passable state.

From the World

Calamari lands is the WA delegate of Mariner Trench and 1-time WA author. They posted this on the on-site forum thread for this proposal:

Calamari lands wrote:

The Calamarilandese Delegacy voted against because of the lack of a drafting process. This makes the proposal's quality very dubious.

Bananaistan is a GA Secretariat member and 2-time GA author. They posted this on the on-site forum discussion thread for this proposal:

Bananaistan wrote:

“There are major issues here not least the fact that the proposing delegation did not do the rest of us the courtesy of providing us with the text of the proposal themselves, and did not open a debate themselves prior to asking us to vote on it. “The requirement that every single business with an “industrial facility” must have a huge 70 year private dump regardless of the scope of the business is insane. “The fact that this is stated as a requirement but then the following clause makes it optional is insane. Just what exactly are these businesses supposed to do? “Then who pays for the 70 years of professional maintenance? “Investing time and resources in assisting the effort to an non-contained waste-free world” is meaningless drivel. “This general requirement to “reduce waste discharge” is bonkers. Specific problems have been addressed in other resolutions. It’s hardly the concern of this assemble if an old newspaper happens to blow out the door of a factory. “This penalties thing. In the incredibly unlikely event that this proposal isn’t rightly utterly rejected by the assembly, I can assure you that the penalty in Bananaistan will be no more than 1/4d per millennium. “Overall this will be a waste of the assembly’s time. It’s a shame that normal custom and practice has not been followed by the proposing delegation. Someone would have advised them not to bother and not waste everyone’s time.”

Imperium Anglorum is the WA Delegate of Europe, a Commended nation, and the author of 40 WA resolutions. They posted this on the on-site forum thread for this proposal:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

I voted against because of two things. One, the fact that you have to have a 70 year bunker in your backyard for some reason. Two, the fact that you can have the government build one for you and give it for your use.... but still get fined for not having it in your backyard. The latter part is just stupid. I don't care whether someone drafted on-site or not. Proposal quality is only weakly associated with drafting on site.

Chimes is the WA Delegate of the Rejected Realms. They posted this on TRR's forums:

Chimes wrote:

Poorly written sadly. Also disappointing to see proposal was not drafted or posted on the NS Forum by the author. Against.

—
—WELCOME— —BEGINNER'S GUIDE— —WRITING GUIDE— —VOTING CENTER— — Link

DISCORD—
—

—

·
·

The South Pacifican Government of Office of WA Legislation

Edited: 3 years 6 days ago

Raw • Report