NationStates Jolt Archive

Enviornmental Protection Agency

Category All Industry

Article I
All People must be protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work.

Article II
All International efforts to reduce environmental risk must be based on the best available scientific information.

Article III
All International laws protecting human health and the environment are enforced fairly and effectively.

Article IV
Environmental protection is an integral consideration in NSun policies concerning natural resources, human health, economic growth, energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and international trade, and these factors are similarly considered in establishing environmental policy.

Article V
All parts of society--communities, individuals, business, national, state and local governments, tribal governments--be granted access to the most accurate information available to effectively participate in managing human health and environmental risks.

Article VI
It is the sense of the NSun that environmental protection contributes to making our communities and ecosystems diverse, sustainable and economically productive.

Please add your endorsement to this legislation...

Enviornmental Protection Agency

Category All Industry

Article I
All People must be protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work.

Article II
All International efforts to reduce environmental risk must be based on the best available scientific information.

Article III
All International laws protecting human health and the environment are enforced fairly and effectively.

Article IV
Environmental protection is an integral consideration in NSun policies concerning natural resources, human health, economic growth, energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and international trade, and these factors are similarly considered in establishing environmental policy.

Article V
All parts of society--communities, individuals, business, national, state and local governments, tribal governments--be granted access to the most accurate information available to effectively participate in managing human health and environmental risks.

Article VI
It is the sense of the NSun that environmental protection contributes to making our communities and ecosystems diverse, sustainable and economically productive.

Please add your endorsement to this legislation...

1. What constitutes a significant risk?
2. How do we decide which is the "best" scientific information?
5. How is this information going to be distributed to say, tribal governments, which might still be out hunting using spears and unaware of the use of computers, etc., speaking a language that no one has translated yet?
6. Diverse in what way? Environmental protection contributes to different peoples settling in a community?

I'm pretty sure that I endorsed that one.

If not please tell me.

Wow. More "No" votes than "I am not a delegate" votes.

The People's Republic Of Amyth would like to support this proposal.

...and volcanos.

Stakanovia is not a delegate but would like to voice its approval for this proposal.

Just needs a bit of detail and clarification.

The United States of Anacanapuna does not support this proposal for the following reasons:

1. Unenforceable.
2. Ambiguous in nature
3. Subjective in substance
4. Combersome to Administer
5. More costly than cancer

I hate to be a wet blanket here, but this is a fairy tale moulded in some semi-legislative form.
Sure it's easy enough to make a resolution stating nothing more than "let it be resolved that the world is henceforth a beautiful oasis of peace and harmony for all" without so much as implying how this is going to come to be, but of course it has no real function whatsoever.
Thus, this particular proposal has no real function whatsoever, and one would be wise to wholly ignore it.

Get of your high-horse.

Of course it has merit.

Of course it is vague in some instances (no metion of volcanos).

I belive that the proposal is seeking engagement of various players in constructing a viable and livable society and environment. Surely such a proposal should be of benefit to all. But if ignoing issue suits you, well don't go for it.

I think it does have merit. I think it could be intentionally vague because you CAN'T document every single senario that could possibly happen that might fall under this resolution. You have to leave it open to interpretation by a judge. It has to stand the test of time.

Let's try to break it down.

Enviornmental Protection Agency

Category All Industry

Article I
All People must be protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work.

Well, this one won't always be enforced. As I understand it, this is exactly Southern Asian countries are building their economies. The same way it happened in North America and Europe: progressive change, from dirty, unsafe factories and dying in the coal mines by the age of 40 to today. Things will NOT be nice in a developing country, but things will naturally progress over time if workers aren't collectivly masochists and ask for higher wages and such.

Article II
All International efforts to reduce environmental risk must be based on the best available scientific information.

This is too much to ask? That international efforts to reduce environmental risk should be based on relativly solid scientific information? Like I said, this proposal is open to interpretation. A judge will use good common sense and see that an effort is at least based on scientific findings. If you get to be a judge that rules on things under the context of resolutions, you kow what 'the best available scientific information' means.

Article III
All International laws protecting human health and the environment are enforced fairly and effectively.

Once again, this is left to a judge to decide. Anyone making decisions on UN resolutions will have a firm grasp on 'fair' and 'effective'. It won't work perfectly, but nothing does.

Article IV
Environmental protection is an integral consideration in NSun policies concerning natural resources, human health, economic growth, energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and international trade, and these factors are similarly considered in establishing environmental policy.

Well this is a given. You'd have to have very poor foresight or have been dropped on the head as a baby not to take the world around you into consideration when making policies concerning the world around you. If you're going to make a policy concerning the disposal of nuclear waste, you're going to take your citizens health into consideration. You could argue that the article specifically states that your decision should benefit environmental protection efforts, but all it says is that you should CONSIDER it when making policies. As in you should consider 1) giving out a free barrel of radioactive waste to each home in your nations (cost effective, but bad for citizens) or 2) storing the waste deep underground in some desert (not as cost effective, but safer).

It doesn't say you have to enact the environmentally friendly policy, but it says to consider it.

Article V
All parts of society--communities, individuals, business, national, state and local governments, tribal governments--be granted access to the most accurate information available to effectively participate in managing human health and environmental risks.

As in, equal access to the internet or something? That's pretty much a given if you don't live in China (don't tell me government officials won't get CNN.com on thier computer). All it says is that all people must be oppressed equally.

Article VI
It is the sense of the NSun that environmental protection contributes to making our communities and ecosystems diverse, sustainable and economically productive.

This just says 'We, the majority that just passed this resolution, make it polcy that UN interests include environmental conservation.' This could affect UN rulings on article 4. Who WOULDN'T want to keep the environment around for exploitation indefinatly though?

I think it does have merit. I think it could be intentionally vague because you CAN'T document every single senario that could possibly happen that might fall under this resolution. You have to leave it open to interpretation by a judge. It has to stand the test of time.

Let's try to break it down.

Enviornmental Protection Agency

Category All Industry

Article I
All People must be protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work.



Well, this one won't always be enforced. As I understand it, this is exactly Southern Asian countries are building their economies. The same way it happened in North America and Europe: progressive change, from dirty, unsafe factories and dying in the coal mines by the age of 40 to today. Things will NOT be nice in a developing country, but things will naturally progress over time if workers aren't collectivly masochists and ask for higher wages and such.

Article II
All International efforts to reduce environmental risk must be based on the best available scientific information.

This is too much to ask? That international efforts to reduce environmental risk should be based on relativly solid scientific information? Like I said, this proposal is open to interpretation. A judge will use good common sense and see that an effort is at least based on scientific findings. If you get to be a judge that rules on things under the context of resolutions, you kow what 'the best available scientific information' means.

Article III
All International laws protecting human health and the environment are enforced fairly and effectively.

Once again, this is left to a judge to decide. Anyone making decisions on UN resolutions will have a firm grasp on 'fair' and 'effective'. It won't work perfectly, but nothing does.

Article IV
Environmental protection is an integral consideration in NSun policies concerning natural resources, human health, economic growth, energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and international trade, and these factors are similarly considered in establishing environmental policy.

Well this is a given. You'd have to have very poor foresight or have been dropped on the head as a baby not to take the world around you into consideration when making policies concerning the world around you. If you're going to make a policy concerning the disposal of nuclear waste, you're going to take your citizens health into consideration. You could argue that the article specifically states that your decision should benefit environmental protection efforts, but all it says is that you should CONSIDER it when making policies. As in you should consider 1) giving out a free barrel of radioactive waste to each home in your nations (cost effective, but bad for citizens) or 2) storing the waste deep underground in some desert (not as cost effective, but safer).

It doesn't say you have to enact the environmentally friendly policy, but it says to consider it.

Article V
All parts of society--communities, individuals, business, national, state and local governments, tribal governments--be granted access to the most accurate information available to effectively participate in managing human health and environmental risks.

As in, equal access to the internet or something? That's pretty much a given if you don't live in China (don't tell me government officials won't get CNN.com on thier computer). All it says is that all people must be oppressed equally.

Article VI
It is the sense of the NSun that environmental protection contributes to making our communities and ecosystems diverse, sustainable and economically productive.

This just says 'We, the majority that just passed this resolution, make it polcy that UN interests include environmental conservation.' This could affect UN rulings on article 4. Who WOULDN'T want to keep the environment around for exploitation indefinatly though?

The People's Republic Of Amyth and The Colony of NeoEdo would like to thank you for your eloquent words on our proposal. This proposal is intentionally vague in an effort to make it functional. Perhaps this vagueness is better suited to this game "real world" than to here in the NSun, however we thought we would make an attempt.
We see now that we should have made it more clear that this resolution is an attempt to create guidelines when dealing with enviornmental issues and not a list of things you must or must not do.

While the Free Land of Tipayimisoowin applauds the effort behind the proposal, at this time it will not support it.

Respectfully,
The FLOT