NationStates Jolt Archive

This resolution, while sound in principle, is terrible in actuality!!!

1. It doesn't define or refer to any other source what is considered toxic, or waste.

2. It proposes only an idea, not a way to enforce it or reward appropriate behavior.

3. This doesn't refer to special provisions for nations or corporations, the latter more likely being the guilty culprit.

4. The UN is not here to moderate corporations in individual countries. It is a global peace-keeping body meant to deal with countries.

5. I appreciate the intent to keep the solution simple, but simply put, this is not a solution! The ambiguity of this resolution will only lead to nations and corporations hiding their actions.

I cannot vote for this resolution, despite my affinity with its noble intention.

I ask that you do the same, so that we may propose a better resolution to handle the same situation, a resolution that may actually work.

yes i agree but you also have to look at the fact that if you question what or what isnt then your gonna have alot of questions. Toxic Waste is just that, its objects that will polute the enviroment and cause global disasters. so you can vote on it because we all know what would and wouldnt count as Toxic and non-toxic.

I agree the resolution is a little shakey in it's refined ideas, but it is a sound, strong foundation that could truly help the world. On the comment of the UN being a peace keeping organization, not a place which controls government policies, i believe you are incorrect. It may have been created as a peace keeping organization, but since then has been re-organized to contribute to all the needs of the world being in pollution, war, terrorism, unjust treatment, and even economical situations.

We need resolutions to help economies, not hurt them!

Won't somebody think about the children?

It is not the place of the government to regulate the practices of private enterprise. Nor is it the job of the world stage to regulate the practices of the corporations of individual countries. The government is set up to defend and protect the rights of such corporations, not deny them privilages.

Instead of banning such practices I suggest that instead we offer special incentive to companies that agree not to dump. This can include tax breaks, and other such things to give the company a reason not to.

It is not the place of the government to regulate the practices of private enterprise. Nor is it the job of the world stage to regulate the practices of the corporations of individual countries. The government is set up to defend and protect the rights of such corporations, not deny them privilages.

I dissent. Unbridled capitalism is not healthy for society or the environment. The role of government as I see it is to protect the environment from polluting corporations.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate
Liberal Caucus Member

you also have to look at the fact that if you question what or what isnt then your gonna have alot of questions.

Does that mean we shouldn't question these things? It is our responsibility to ensure that what we want for the world is what we are actually proposing.

Toxic Waste is just that, its objects that will polute the enviroment and cause global disasters. so you can vote on it because we all know what would and wouldnt count as Toxic and non-toxic.

What level of pollution are we talking? Technically, introducing any matter into a body that was not currently there can be considered pollution. I think we need to refine this definition in our resolution.

Also, this resolution only discusses large bodies. What about rivers that eventually will pollute the oceans?

There are too many open issues with this resolution for it to be effective.

Won't somebody think about the children?

That is exactly whom I'm thinking about. We need to be more specific in our resolution.

but since then [the United Nations] has been re-organized to contribute to all the needs of the world being in pollution, war, terrorism, unjust treatment, and even economical situations.

Good point. But, we still need to handle these issues correctly. We should only pass resolutions that work to further these goals, instead of clouding the issues.

I agree that the resolution is cloudy and needs more definition/refining. I am not saying that this resolution is the solution, I am simply suggesting it is a movement in the right direction. It should be rewritten in more descriptive terms before being completely accepted or disagreements on interpretation could turn into wars, and this would be much worse for the environment, so it is a necessity that this resolution be redefined.

However, those of you saying that government is around to help corporations, not hurt them are going to be singing a different tune when the world is a baren waste land because you didn't force people to treat the environment with respect. Contrary to what many people believe, many large businesses care more about money than about people. They do not care if you live or die because of a polutant they put in the air, or any other harmful activity they decide to execute. Many businesses will do anything to save money.

The tobacco industry proves my point. The industry spent years denying what all scientific evidence pointed out as true, and killed countless people. If it weren't for the fact that the tobacco industry can save more money by admitting tobacco is harmful, it would still be denying the fact. It has even been proven that tobacco companies themselves conducted tests showing negative results on tobacco that they denied, and they added extra harmful ingredients to get people more addicted. If this doesn't show you that corporations are not all good, and need someone to help them realize the difference between right and wrong, then I guess you're right, but I personally cannot see how anyone can say the corporations and businesses need protection, the consumers are the ones whom need protection.

what you all fail to realize is is that this argument is basically pointless. the majority of people will look at this and say "hmmm... toxic waste dumping is bad... and i like the oceans..." and then vote for it, no matter what effect it could really have on anything. what we need to do is start making more pro economy resolutions to counterbalance people's stupidity with these things!
but of course, thats talking on a pure game level. if you want to start talking about morals, its a whole different thing. personally, i really care about the environment. but many of these resolutions are really just too general and make no sense.

Modarr is right; it is pointless because people will just look at two words there: Oceans, and Pollution. onece they see that they will vote for it. but there are those who will say the the resolution is too open to vote on. but i still think that dumping in any body of water whether it be a river, lake, stream or even a pond might have dire affects on the area around it. rivers empty into lakes and oceans so no matter what youre polluting lareg bodies of water.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

what you wanna dump in lakes!!???
:shock: :shock:

I agree with Modarr. People will continue to look at key words within a proposal and vote accordingly without thinking through any of the implications of doing so. That's not good at all. Not only does it lead to plenty of vague nice-sounding pointless resolutions that people propose just so they can say they proposed something, but it perpetuates a cycle of unbridled idiocy.

You get no sympathy from me.

-Luminary Hall

Simply put, we ask that all oceanic dumping of toxic wastes in both territorial and international waters be banned.

Sovereignty arguments over territorial water rights are irrelevant because there is no way to prevent toxic waste dumped in one region from contaminating waters in neighbouring nations.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. It's not as thorough as I would like, but I still support it.

>clicky-clicky<

Goobergunchia casts its 20 votes FOR the resolution.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

Greetings,

As far as i know, our Nation produces no toxic waste, as we have nothing that has any reason to produce it. I have voted for this resolution, perhaps it may make some nations reduce the amount of toxic waste they produce, therefore making the world a cleaner place.

Serena

http://mysite.freeserve.com/boogieondown2/Serena_Kardon.jpg

I would think Toxic Waste would be easy to define, any waste that is Toxic (http://merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=toxic). :roll:

We find no crippling objection to the proposal. As it specifies "oceanic dumping", the question of dumping in lakes and rivers does not arise. We may hope that, unlike ocean dumping, such dumping may be voluntarily curbed by nations due its more localized effects. As to the definition of "toxic waste", we find that to be sufficiently self evident and do not believe that borderline cases will be of any consequence.
The most serious issue is that of enforcement, which is not provided for; however, we may suppose that, the UN lacking any military capability for imposing punishments, the only remedy in practice is that whatever nations fail to voluntary comply or to pay such restitution as may be demanded by the UN, are to be expelled. More stringent measures might be appropriate but are not possible in any case.

Of course, those nations, such as our own, which are not UN members will not be prevented from oceanic dumping, but will still benefit equally from any improvement in environmental quality attained.
Since Great Boogie claims to have a shortage of toxic waste, our new oceanic dumping program will concentrate on dumping just outside their territorial waters, into inflowing currents, to make sure they have enough.

I'd think even the libertarians like Ithuania and TGM would agree with this one, because ocean dumping is something that hurts other peoples property. It would be like detonating a chemical weapon on your property, but not claiming any responsibility for the gas that killed several civilians who had property near yours.

You are correct if you just look at a broad definition. However, if you look at any legal argument, or perhaps even a highschool debate, you will notice that out of almost every word there exist multiple definitions, and extremes. If you say simply "hurting people should be illegal" people may say if you hurt someones feelings you should be sent to jail, or if you accidently bump into someone while walking on a crowded street and as a result they sprain their ankle you go to six months prison. You must have a much more restricted definition whether or not the word being used has a usage more common than others when you are speaking law or annoying problems and idiotic complaints and lawsuits occurt.

You are correct if you just look at a broad definition. However, if you look at any legal argument, or perhaps even a highschool debate, you will notice that out of almost every word there exist multiple definitions, and extremes. If you say simply "hurting people should be illegal" people may say if you hurt someones feelings you should be sent to jail, or if you accidently bump into someone while walking on a crowded street and as a result they sprain their ankle you go to six months prison. You must have a much more restricted definition whether or not the word being used has a usage more common than others when you are speaking law or annoying problems and idiotic complaints and lawsuits occurt.

But you aren't only hurting people, you are hurting property too.

Respectfully, no one has yet addressed the original objection to the resolution, to wit, it tells nothing about how it is to be carried out, enforced, and even the contents of the prohibited acts ar undefined. ("We'll know toxic waste when we see it?") This resolution is therefore virtually a meaningless communication, and should be tabled.

It is true that we cannot stop toxic wastes from being dumped in our oceans, but maybe we can try some way of purifying it or something to that extent.

water, in vast quantities, is toxic.

Salt water is toxic too. Should someone who collected a small flask of salt water not be allowed to throw it back into the ocean it came from?

I'm not arguing that, my "hurting people" analogy was an example of why you need more refined definitions. I wasn't talking about the resolution other than that the definitions must be more clear.

As I am seeing it, mostly everyone agrees with me that, while a great idea, the resolution at hand does not go into enough detail and should be rewritten so as to stop loop holes and problems evolving from bad definitions?

Only the staunchest libertarian would oppose this. Bet TGM does.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and big butts!
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

Only the staunchest libertarian would oppose this. Bet TGM does.

Yep.

Im with Luthdua. I think that this resolution is good in theory, I would be more apt to vote in favor of it if the definition of Toxic Waste was in the resolution. As it is now there is plenty of room for loopholes and these areas need to be sealed. I really like the idea behind this resolution but it just needs to be cleaned up slightly.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I value the health of our surroundings as much as the next person, especially considering the fact that my children will have to grow up in our world. However, this proposal is ridiculously broad and most likely also very ineffective.

The fact of that matter is that those who wish to dump waste into our oceans will continue to do so, no matter what points of law you may wish to paint them with. A more effective measure would be for the UN to allocate funds for detoxificatin measures along with a narrower, better defined legislative action.

I propose this resolution be dismissed and immediatley afterwards a more detailed resolution be drafted. The new document should define such things as:

- What *is* toxic waste?
- Do we prohibit the dumping of both degradable and non-degrabable wastes?
- What are the consequences of violating the resolution?
- What levels of increase in polution are defined as 'dumping'? Because, let's face it, some amounts will always leak out.

This resolution is overly broad and just plain dangerous. It defines no firm rules and no firm consequences. Ladies and Gentlemen, I ask you, please reconsider for the sake of all of us.

Well i think that waste SHOULDNT be dumped in the ocean... If too much waste is in the ocean, it will start a chain reaction and start to kill off the population of many things

Fish Die -----> bug overpopulatin
Fish Die -----> Animals start to Starve
Fish Die -----> People who depend on the ocean have to find a new way of life....

Just think about it
The Rouge Nation of Kyber

This resolution, simply put, is ridiculous! It keeps all toxic waste from being dumped into the entire ocean. However, the UN is suppose to regulate UN nations, not the world. Also, if we can't dump it in the ocean, we're just going to increase the amt. dumped on land, etc. It can't solve. It just shifts the dumping of waste elsewhere. This resolution needs to say what toxic waste is, how we're going to enforce it, when it takes effect, and what alternative do we have if we can't dump it in the ocean. We can't just all of a sudden stop the production of toxic waste. This resolution is just way too full of loopholes to be worthwhile to anyone. I urge everyone to vote against. the toxic waste dumping ban resolution.

Why would anyone in their right mind want to dump garbage into the ocean?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and big butts!
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

Ahem. If I may have the floor? Thank you. After careful consideration of the term "toxic waste", Idumea's Comprehensive Environmental Response Department has issued the following statement, upon which we are basing our "yes" vote on this proposal:

Toxic chemicals are those chemicals that can cause acute health or significant adverse environmental impacts. These include:

any chemical known to cause (or can be reasonably anticipated or expected to cause) significant adverse acute human health effects at concentration levels likely to exist beyond facility site boundaries as a result of continuous, or frequently recurring, releases;

any chemical known to cause (or reasonably anticipated or expected to cause) either:

cancer or teratogenic effects; or

serious or irreversible reproductive dysfunctions, neurological
disorders, heritable genetic mutations, or other chronic health effects; or

any chemical known to cause (or reasonably anticipated or expected to
cause), because of its toxicity, persistence in the environment, or
tendency to bioaccumulate, a significant adverse effect on the
environment.

We believe that this definition is carried in the phrase "toxic waste", and that the phrase is sufficiently understood by all who hear it to stand on its own in any proposal drafted by the NSUN. We feel attempts to table the proposal in order to clarify the definition of "toxic waste" therefore to be a waste of the delegate's time.

In regards to the issue of enforceability, it is our position that the UN is under no obligation to spell out consequences of non-compliance in adopted proposals. Simply put, if passed, the oceanic dumping of toxic waste, as all reasonable nations understand the term, is prohibited. Any nation who cares to test the boundaries of the proposal is free to do so - at that point, the NSUN shall also be free to agree upon and mete out any penalty that is within our power, as the delegates deem appropriate.

If i cant put in the ocean then where can i put it? Jeez my whole economy relies on the dumping in the water that way its not on land and i satnd on land. Therefore land is more important then ocean water which isnt even drinkable if not properly treated. Not only that why do we need sea creatures anyways they are dumb and swim around doing nothing but swiming. For all you know i could have killed some sea monster therefore you should thank the people who dump toxic waste in water. My final point is why the hell is this proposal here in the first place its frivilous and if you want to do something about dumping in sea then put it with other stuff like the ban on not dumping shit in the ocean.

If your entire economy is based on garbage dumping, you need to fix that, cause you won't last long.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and big butts!
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

Even if we were to stop dumping toxic waste, what are we to do with it? We can't burn it, we can't just leave it somewhere, we can't just eject it into space. What alternative is there

Just like the opening argument, this says nothing about what wastes cannot be dumped and what enforcment could be applied.

Actually, spacedumping is allowed, I believe. It better because I've got too much trash in space.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and big butts!
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

Everyone who has voted for this resolution, who say they KNOW the definition of toxic waste, are only contributing to the problem.

The definition of toxic waste is not clearly defined by those debating it. While we all assume that toxic waste is this ... or toxic waste is that ...
we are only voting for our assumptions about what this resolution will do.

I agree with Luthdua that a new document should be drafted to handle the dumping of "toxic waste" into the ocean.

But, first, we have to vote this one down - or table it - so that ineffective and ambiguous resolutions don't get passed onto the world stage!

While many may never come to this forum and debate, WE should all try to stop ineffective resolutions from getting passed. WE have the power to stop this terrible proposal from going through and create a new one that will more accurately and effectively deal with the issue.

Actually, any waste can be disposed of reasonably safely, it just costs a little more than dumping it in the Pacific.
Most organic toxins can be incinerated, or even biodegraded, to reduce them to low-threat compounds. Anything that can't be neutralized by incineration (radioactives, heavy metals) can be sequestered in permanent underground storage.

Are people considered toxic waste?

OUT OF PRINCIPLE I WOULD HAVE TO SAY YES TO THIS RESOLUTION. IF WE ALLOW COMPANIES TO GET SOME GROUND THEY WILL TAKE MORE AND MORE AND MORE AND MORE AND MORE UNTILL THEY HAVE THEIR WAY COMPLETELY. :x

Normally I am a stickler of good formulation, and would never ever agree on a resolution that well good intend has such ackward consquences because it is formulated horribly.
I went ot have a closer look at the resolution and it seems it is tolerable.
Afcourse finer details necassery of real legislation are not there, but we are not lawyers so I think in this case that can be excused.
This resolution can be compared to a no allowance of chemical weapons resolution. If anybody can look that one up it would be most intresting to compare real world writing with NS civilian writing. It can also be compared to a resolution that demands democracy in a nation. Because the definition of a democracy is a vague one.
The main thing to remember that this is a standard statement resolution. To actually procescute someone against it, another resolution involving boycots or military intervention or anything else has to pass the UN again.
So basically what it says is that it forbids doing anything that results in putting toxic waste in oceanic water. Including putting it in your terretorial water from where it will flow to the great oceans.
What may be done, or not, and what is considered toxic waste will be discussed when some nation proposes that another nations breaks the resolution and wants to take steps. The fine definition of what toxic waste means while therefore be decided in later resolutions.
What this resolution does is give nations a stick to hit other nations with.
Do note that it will be an hypocritical stick. Because what is already notided is that the definition of toxic is wide. Even so wide that will be IMPOSSIBLE for a nation to follow this resolution.
This is however is not a deadly problem. Later resolutions will sort out what will be punished and what not.
This resolution is legaly in my eyes acceptable, though bearly.

I like to note 4 statements about this that someone can use as arguments for himself to think about it.

1. This will kill the industry. Since polution happens so fast and is happing on such a massige schale the cost of building cleaning stations at the end of rivers and no longer pouring stuff in the rivers will come to an incredable cost. A cost poorer nations just can't afford.

2. Trying to keep the oceans clean this way is going about it all wrong. Trying to stop people from poluting on this massive scale is just imposible. Other than that it does not undo the damage already done. We would be far better off if we would just spend on research to find way of cleaning the oceans when they are already poluted. There is a good chance this will eventually turn out to be cheaper to, and it will result in keeping the oceans clean enough and therefore gaining our goals. While letting a little bit of our burden on the planet fall on the oceans too. And while this resolution will kill our economy, opinion 2 will definity not. By seriously beefing up our research in the area we will even increase our ecnonomies. And in the process of doing research in this area we will find all kinds of other usefull technologies too. Including a lot of enviromental once that can be used on other places.

3. This will create a horrible unfair world. This resolution cannot be kept by anybody and results in everybody breaking it. First of all this creates a very weak resolution. But the worst thing is that the decision to approach a nation on this issue will not be enviromental at all. It will just be another reason for a nation to hurt his opponents. It will just turn out in one big popularity contests, having nothing to do with the enviroment at all. And seeing this resolution being used as an excuse to desrupt another nation, or to invade a nations coastal area's, or starting economic sanctions seems only hurting the ecological case in my eyes. Do you really think people will vote because they think somebody is poluting enough. No way, they will just vote for actions against somebody because they don't like some body.

4. Though imperfect it is a good step in the right direction. I know it will not result in stopping all poluting but it gives a strong message to (heavily) poluting nations. And it gives the UN the power to step in to stop heavy poluters who seem to not care about the world at all.
It is definitily a strong message. And though it will be almost impossible to control it, atleast the UN can deal with people who openly express an attitude of "I just put my garbage in my neighbours yard, and then I am rid of it."

I agree completely with Nikonia's position. This is simply an idea...a desire...with no answers to all of the six important questions that all UN resolutions must address, namely who? what? where? when? why? how? The concept is a good one, but it does absolutely no good for anyone by leaving everything so vague and open with no definitions given. To vote in favor of this measure with no clear answers, solutions and definitions is to invite more harm to everyone than good. In effect, it could quite easily lead to an increase in the problem that this measure is intended to eliminate. I think the measure should be redrafted to address Nikonia's points and fill in the holes. What good is a fishing net with holes in it the size of Orca?

Sincerely,
The Illustrious Sultan of Franco Slaughter

Are any UN mandates actually enforcable? Is the UN a viable institution for anything other than solving political and diplomatic problems?

Ahem. If I may have the floor? Thank you. After careful consideration of the term "toxic waste", Idumea's Comprehensive Environmental Response Department has issued the following statement, upon which we are basing our "yes" vote on this proposal:

Toxic chemicals are those chemicals that can cause acute health or significant adverse environmental impacts. These include:

any chemical known to cause (or can be reasonably anticipated or expected to cause) significant adverse acute human health effects at concentration levels likely to exist beyond facility site boundaries as a result of continuous, or frequently recurring, releases;

any chemical known to cause (or reasonably anticipated or expected to cause) either:

cancer or teratogenic effects; or

serious or irreversible reproductive dysfunctions, neurological
disorders, heritable genetic mutations, or other chronic health effects; or

any chemical known to cause (or reasonably anticipated or expected to
cause), because of its toxicity, persistence in the environment, or
tendency to bioaccumulate, a significant adverse effect on the
environment.

We believe that this definition is carried in the phrase "toxic waste", and that the phrase is sufficiently understood by all who hear it to stand on its own in any proposal drafted by the NSUN. We feel attempts to table the proposal in order to clarify the definition of "toxic waste" therefore to be a waste of the delegate's time.

In regards to the issue of enforceability, it is our position that the UN is under no obligation to spell out consequences of non-compliance in adopted proposals. Simply put, if passed, the oceanic dumping of toxic waste, as all reasonable nations understand the term, is prohibited. Any nation who cares to test the boundaries of the proposal is free to do so - at that point, the NSUN shall also be free to agree upon and mete out any penalty that is within our power, as the delegates deem appropriate.

I agree with this addition details. That means I agree with adding details, maybe not with the exact details. In fact I am in favor for it. Had I not just changed nations, I would have voted against it. But I do expect a new proposal to be made that has changes like this included.

About the enforceability, that is the standard way the UN works :)
The only change IRL in that process is that some issues are allowed to be addressed by the UN permanet court. At which point individual nations can't vote for it anymore. But for now its powers are so limited, and as far as I know only against individuals, so no worries there.

Ahem. If I may have the floor? Thank you. After careful consideration of the term "toxic waste", Idumea's Comprehensive Environmental Response Department has issued the following statement, upon which we are basing our "yes" vote on this proposal:

Toxic chemicals are those chemicals that can cause acute health or significant adverse environmental impacts. These include:

any chemical known to cause (or can be reasonably anticipated or expected to cause) significant adverse acute human health effects at concentration levels likely to exist beyond facility site boundaries as a result of continuous, or frequently recurring, releases;

any chemical known to cause (or reasonably anticipated or expected to cause) either:

cancer or teratogenic effects; or

serious or irreversible reproductive dysfunctions, neurological
disorders, heritable genetic mutations, or other chronic health effects; or

any chemical known to cause (or reasonably anticipated or expected to
cause), because of its toxicity, persistence in the environment, or
tendency to bioaccumulate, a significant adverse effect on the
environment.



Sounds pretty good. One could also argue if the first point should be "acute health effects" instead of "acute human health effects".

I would think Toxic Waste would be easy to define, any waste that is Toxic (http://merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=toxic). :roll:

Water itself can be toxic...

You could always try to drain the oceans and scrub the sea floor and clean the water.

This resolution, while sound in principle, is terrible in actuality!!!

1. It doesn't define or refer to any other source what is considered toxic, or waste.

2. It proposes only an idea, not a way to enforce it or reward appropriate behavior.

3. This doesn't refer to special provisions for nations or corporations, the latter more likely being the guilty culprit.

4. The UN is not here to moderate corporations in individual countries. It is a global peace-keeping body meant to deal with countries.

5. I appreciate the intent to keep the solution simple, but simply put, this is not a solution! The ambiguity of this resolution will only lead to nations and corporations hiding their actions.

I cannot vote for this resolution, despite my affinity with its noble intention.

I ask that you do the same, so that we may propose a better resolution to handle the same situation, a resolution that may actually work.

Eli suggests that a market based approach to the issue is the correct way to go and suggests the following reading for countries reading.
http://www.chicagoclimateexchange.com/environment/market.html
and
http://www.chicagoclimateexchange.com/news/pdf/ChicagoSunTimes011703.pdf

OUT OF PRINCIPLE I WOULD HAVE TO SAY YES TO THIS RESOLUTION. IF WE ALLOW COMPANIES TO GET SOME GROUND THEY WILL TAKE MORE AND MORE AND MORE AND MORE AND MORE UNTILL THEY HAVE THEIR WAY COMPLETELY. :x

Untrue. Corporations are the most responsible of organizations. They pursue profit in the least costly manner. The key is to motivate proper behavior with incentives to do the right thing.

Any dumping of toxic waste is immoral, wrong and effects everyone.

Granted it is not specific on the level of toxic level, but it will be sure to assume that anything which does effect the evironment would not be tolerated by the resolution.

Any body not supporting the resolution are looking out for their economy clearly deep routed in unevrinomental systems with are profitiable not moral or right.

Any dumping of toxic waste is immoral, wrong and effects everyone.

Granted it is not specific on the level of toxic level, but it will be sure to assume that anything which does effect the evironment would not be tolerated by the resolution.

Any body not supporting the resolution are looking out for their economy clearly deep routed in unevrinomental systems with are profitiable not moral or right.

read the links below. without individuals and corporations (groups of individuals) producing goods and services there is no economy.

http://www.chicagoclimateexchange.com/environment/market.html
and
http://www.chicagoclimateexchange.com/news/pdf/ChicagoSunTimes011703.pdf

Granted it is not specific on the level of toxic level, but it will be sure to assume that anything which does effect the evironment would not be tolerated by the resolution.



Pay attention what you just wrote. Especially the word "assume". Now, ask yourself does the word "assume" have any place in any legislation. No, it doesn't.
Sure it would be nice if everyone was nice but sorry, we will be needing more exact regulation before that.

I hate to break this to you but many things have effect in environment. Pretty much anything has effect in environment.
Nuclear plants circulate water through their systems. Pollutants are low but the water is warm and has lots of effect in environment, so warm water is toxic waste? Salt water and distilled water are both lethal when ingested, so they are toxic waste too?

Meaningless, half-assed resolutions which do more damage than good were the reason I left UN and looks like I haven't missed anything.

This is crazy. I will never vote for such a broad, all encompassing resolution.

How can anyone even consider this without even a definition of "Toxic Waste". Toxic is a highly arguable term.

not only is this too overbroad, it's stupid!!! the oceans are such large areas with so much water they make a great place to dump and disperse toxic wastes with minimal damage to the environment.

I'm not saying that dumping should be allowed freely, or that any kind of waste should be allowed to be dumped, but really...

THIS RESOLUTION HAS THE INTELLIGENCE OF A PRE-SCHOOL CHILD!!!

VOTE NO!!!

this is absurd...

-

I encourage everone who can to vot NO on this resoultion.

It will harm all local and infant industries, which will lead to unemployment. This is unacceptable.

What will stop non-UN member states to dump in the ocean and harm us all? It will hurt as more if we dont have the economy to fight them back, our matket will be flooded by cheap foriegn goods.

The resolution is unclear and does not provide a definition as to what is toxic, it is very open ended.

It will lead to inflation, as businesses will need to spend more on alternativetes. And hig inflation is not desirable.

So, I encourage you all to vote NO on this resolution.




* If you fart in the ocean, is it considered toxic? Just a thought..

Untrue. Corporations are the most responsible of organizations. They pursue profit in the least costly manner . The key is to motivate proper behavior with incentives to do the right thing.

That's a contradiction all in it self. If organizations were responsible, it would mean they would pursue profit in the least costly most environmentally, humanitarianly, and fair manner, not just least costly.

What will stop non-UN member states to dump in the ocean and harm us all? It will hurt as more if we dont have the economy to fight them back, our matket will be flooded by cheap foriegn goods.


So, what you're saying is that because other countries would still dump waste in the ocean the UN countries should continue doing so because it won't help? The resolution would make all nations in the UN stop dumping in oceans, which, while it wouldn't stop every nation, it would stop a considerable amount of nations. It would be better if only half of the people dumping waste in oceans now continued to do so. It wouldn't entirely solve the problem, but it would help.

not only is this too overbroad, it's stupid!!! the oceans are such large areas with so much water they make a great place to dump and disperse toxic wastes with minimal damage to the environment.

If anything thing is stupid or absurd, it would be your statement. I don't normally like to insult people, but you're calling others stupid for something you know nothing about. Yes, there is a large amount of water in the oceans, but no matter how much water there is, if people don't stop dumping the waste into the oceans the oceans will become hazardous. The oceans do not disperse the toxins as fast as you claim. In fact, if you would simply look at any good, solid, credible data about pollution in the oceans, you would realize that in fact the oceans are in terrible shape. I don't mind if you state your opinion, but please don't pass this type of idea as fact. Also, don't insult people, it gets you no where, and you look utterly stupid when you are wrong.

It's such a cute little idea. How sweet. Save the whales, keep our oceans clean etc. It's nice in theory, but what will it accomplish? This resolution needs to be rewritten with provisions defining toxic waste and how this will be enforeced.

Yes Humans are Toxic waste!!!!
or maybe not..... :twisted: :twisted:

Yeah, and besides, where else will our toxic waste go? I say that the oceans should be the one to suffer. Also, the ratio of water vs. toxic waste will be uneven enough to slowly build immunity to toxic water; a new super-race could be formed! Better yet, we might even grow a third arm; and tell me, who can't use a third arm?

Vote no.

Thank you to everyone who has been debating this issue. Despite a large support for turning down this broad and ineffective resolution, I suspect it will still pass.

To try and minimize the harm caused by this broad sweeping generalizing resolution, I am currently composing a new proposal. This new proposal will amend this resolution to answer as many questions as legislation dictates.

If you would like to assist in the proposal, please send Nikonia a telegram.

Sincerely,
The Holy Emperor of Nikonia

Despite missing most public debate in this thread, Abysseria has expressed its displeasure with the current resolution as stated in the other thread on this topic.

Abysseria states its solidarity with all those opposed to this resolution.

Catholic Europe believes that the dumping of toxic waste into the oceans is very wrong and that, as a result, some alternative way of disposing toxic waste should be found.

Its comfortable for me that there are Great Intellects here who take the

time to point out our errors, illtiteracy, and anything else that will help
their pathetic insecurities, and prop up their shrunken egos at our

expense. Again, Thank you elite ones, thank you for your emptyness. :P

We should not dump toxic wastes into the ocean no matter how conveniente it tis. :!:

We should not dump toxic wastes into the ocean no matter how conveniente it tis. :!:

It's not a matter of convenience, it's a matter of what the resolution truly proposes, what it does not propose, and what it means in terms of precedence. This motion, while against toxic waste, is poorly worded, sets dangerous precedents, and lacks any statement about enforcement. It is an empty resolution with little clarification.

Vote against this resolution.

Its comfortable for me that there are Great Intellects here who take the

time to point out our errors, illtiteracy, and anything else that will help
their pathetic insecurities, and prop up their shrunken egos at our

expense. Again, Thank you elite ones, thank you for your emptyness. :P

My intention is not for my own benefit, but for the benefit of the world. I have no lasting impressions about any delegate/country's competence.

Simply put, the current UN Resolution is inadequate to deal with the problem it mentions. As stated previously, I am composing a new proposal to help amend this resoultion, clarify the issue, and better our world.

To the nations that have sent Nikonia a telegram indicating a desire to assist in writing this proposal, I will send you a new telegram tonight, with an outline for the proposal.

Thank you all for the great debate.

here's a quick idea, we need the processes that produce this toxic waste to provide energy. this energy is spent in many ways, though one of them is into the space program. the space program is bringing us one step closer to getting off this rock, which we should feel free to abuse. it's our home, we control it, we conquered it, i say we do whatever we want with it!

Oh, btw, more money towards global unification and getting space colonies up and running!

Simply put, the current UN Resolution is inadequate to deal with the problem it mentions. As stated previously, I am composing a new proposal to help amend this resoultion, clarify the issue, and better our world.

On behalf of the people of the Commonwealth of Houndism, I thank you. Trout fishing is part of economy, and as we all know, this toxic waste is harmful not only to the beautification of our oceans, but also to the survival of all living creatures in it. We thankyou for taking the time to amend the current resoultion and we hope that after all is said and done, the U.N. realizes that we are better off with this proposal being accepted

Its comfortable for me that there are Great Intellects here who take the

time to point out our errors, illtiteracy, and anything else that will help
their pathetic insecurities, and prop up their shrunken egos at our

expense. Again, Thank you elite ones, thank you for your emptyness. :P

*OOC mode on* I don't know about you, but I actually try to roleplay a nation leader a bit. When this includes legislation, damn right I will point out if some resolution has holes in it.
Why? Because that's the way things work in Real Life too, and this is one of those points where I don't see much reason why NS should differ from RL.
If you have trouble with bureaucracy, maybe you should consider some other game. Minesweeper doesn't have any legislation in it, give it a try. *OOC mode off*

vote against it,
all the nations who arent in the UN arent going to do as it says, so why should we?
your nations will have to have higher Tax Rates so that you can have Toxic waste dissposal units, and your economy will be worse if you make corporations do this.

The below is true; some would consider human sewage to be toxic waste, others would not. Moreover, consistent environmental studies have shown that the actual level of waste dumped in the world's oceans is but a small fraction of what the ocean is actually capable of processing. All that we see is the unpleasantness at the surface, eg. oil slicks and the like.

Perhaps the more careful regulation of dumping would be a better solution, since all this undefined toxic waste will now have to be dumped on land. As an example certain nuclear fuels cannot be reprocessed, and need to be disposed of either on land or the sea. Stronger dumping controls are the solution!

Abysseria awaits the promised ammendment to this resolution with great eagerness. Please notify her by telegram if she can be of any assistance.

We need resolutions to help economies, not hurt them!

There's a Blinkered Capitalists Anonymous convention going on somewhere near here as we speak.

WHO CARES??? LETS VOTE ON SOMETHING MORE IMPORTANT!!!

WHO CARES??? LETS VOTE ON SOMETHING MORE IMPORTANT!!!

More important than the slow destuction of our earth? I don't think the UN has the authority to elect Gods. :roll:

The below is true; some would consider human sewage to be toxic waste, others would not. Moreover, consistent environmental studies have shown that the actual level of waste dumped in the world's oceans is but a small fraction of what the ocean is actually capable of processing. All that we see is the unpleasantness at the surface, eg. oil slicks and the like.

Perhaps the more careful regulation of dumping would be a better solution, since all this undefined toxic waste will now have to be dumped on land. As an example certain nuclear fuels cannot be reprocessed, and need to be disposed of either on land or the sea. Stronger dumping controls are the solution!

Very good point! I have withdrawn my approval for this resolution.

Gadgerstan votes against: We believe industry to be more important than the environment.

Gadgerstan votes against: We believe industry to be more important than the environment.

Could you be more vague please? I'm getting lost in all the specifics.

This resolution, while sound in principle, is terrible in actuality!!!

1. It doesn't define or refer to any other source what is considered toxic, or waste.

2. It proposes only an idea, not a way to enforce it or reward appropriate behavior.

3. This doesn't refer to special provisions for nations or corporations, the latter more likely being the guilty culprit.

4. The UN is not here to moderate corporations in individual countries. It is a global peace-keeping body meant to deal with countries.

5. I appreciate the intent to keep the solution simple, but simply put, this is not a solution! The ambiguity of this resolution will only lead to nations and corporations hiding their actions.

I cannot vote for this resolution, despite my affinity with its noble intention.

I ask that you do the same, so that we may propose a better resolution to handle the same situation, a resolution that may actually work.

The Free Land of Youghiogheny will also vote against this resolution for the reasons so eloquently stated by the delegate from Nikonia.

I too voted against, on economic and environmental grounds.

The best way to control toxic waste is via tax.
The UN can set a global tax that reflects the externalities of the pollution. After that individual nations can set a tax/charge within their own waters/land that reflects the cost/desire of the waste being dumped.

With that revenue, the UN and national govts are free to spend that revenue as they please- some may choose environmental schemes, some may feel the education of their kids is more important.

The crucial thing is that each nation, subject to an inernational (tax) payment should be able to deal with this as they please. Its not the UN's place to lump rich and poor, developed and developing, agricultural, manufacturing and service economies with the same restrictions, regardless of their needs.

The Allied States of Armandal will vote agianst this proposal. It has been discussed & debated to great lengths. If we dont dump in the ocean then where would it go? And what oceans has waste been dumped into already. We will not allow nor support any dumping in our waters.And we will back this by military force and trade embargoes if so deemed.

The problem occurs that if the resolution is passed before the UN council, and a spot it picked to dump on then what? What happens when that area becomes full or overburdened? We propose to all the nations of the world that more research funding is needed in this matter of waste disposal. We have our top researchers working on it now. But only together can we overcome this problem.

"The Governing Houses of Armandal"

My country is leaning towards voting for the proposal. However, there are some unanswered questions. Who will enforce the proposal, and what are the consequences if a nation violates the law? Will nations be in charge of enforcing their own industries?

The Republic of Internet Security votes against this proposal. We do not feel this is enforceable and the cost will be born by the affluent nations and not spread evenly.

My tiny countires tiny population of 5 Million would be devestated if this bill is passed, we have no room to construct adequate facilites to remove the waste we produce.

although in the long run it would be understandable to stop the dumping.
MY TINY NATION AND MANY LIKE IT WOULD NOT SURVIVE IF FORCED TO REMOVE THE TOXIC WASTE ON THEIR HOME SOIL

We ask that those with the power to wave more votes vote AGAINST this resoloution. Millions of people, what we represent would suffer!

From the Humble Metens

My country is leaning towards voting for the proposal. However, there are some unanswered questions. Who will enforce the proposal, and what are the consequences if a nation violates the law? Will nations be in charge of enforcing their own industries?

While the honorable delegation from JBRoyal raises many appropriate and timely questions, the resolution at hand does not provide answers. As a result, if you vote yes, you vote for uncertainty. Vote no, until a more reasonable motion is drafted and proposed.

yes i agree but you also have to look at the fact that if you question what or what isnt then your gonna have alot of questions. Toxic Waste is just that, its objects that will polute the enviroment and cause global disasters. so you can vote on it because we all know what would and wouldnt count as Toxic and non-toxic.


Dumping tons of salt in one area would be toxic i that area until it had time to disperse even though salt is found in the sea. Most substances are poisonous in some way at a given concentration(e.g. oxygen) so you can't just be black and white about it.

It is precisely this sort of thinking that lies behind most UN proposals and this has to be stopped. If you agree then drop me a telegram and we can come up with well though-out proposals that offer solutions rather than just knock the system. :mrgreen:

This is a public message from the Neo-Communistic states to the Commonwealth of Giedi.

Our enviromentalists have found slightly higher traces of radioactive uranimum in your terretorrial waters than is the normal earth standard. We considered radioactive materials toxic. Though we know that your country is rather enviromental aware, we found that these particals, even though in minute proportions come from small spoils that slipt through your cleaning system. However with the current resolution you give us no other option. Improve the world, start somewhere. Unless you make sure absolutely nothing will enter the water anymore, one week after this resolution passes we will declare war on the Commonwealth of Giedi, because we feel forced to declare war on the Commonwealth of Giedi to shut down its uranium mining. We are secretly working in the intrest of other uranium mining nations to increase there monopoly by the way. They however feel secure enough that there army can withstand the UN. We are very sad to do this, but absoluty no toxic materials, means absolutily no toxic materials.

This ultimatium will never be followed through. However it is our last, maybe final attempt to stop the horror you unleashed on the world due to bad formulating. We are an enviromental conscious nation, but your initiative gives us enviromentally aware people a bad name. At this stage it will also not take the resolution anymore of the table, but at least I want to show the writer of the resolution what a horrible legal error he made. We hope that this awareness will result in more awareness in the future, and maybe an update of this resolution.

Neo-Communists, for a better world, but not with a sledgehammer.

ps. We are also very sad that the deligates failed to see this crusial error and managed to correct this.

In response to many of the comments posted here and to the comments of the Neo-Communistic states:

Research in mid oceanic waters has indicated the even higher levels of pollution and a .008 increase in toxics even off our shores, we are a nation located in the 10000 islands region, this is un-heard of in our part of the world.
THERE MUST BE a porposal set before the UN council to create a team of researchers to create a program for ALL nations that will solve the waste disposal method in all waters, smaller nations such as ours do not emit large amounts of waste nor are we a huge industry nation like some of our fellow nations.

We cannot at this time, as the makers of laws, and the keepers of peace in the world powers structure, allow this resolution to go through. If we do we open the door for mindless corporate owned nations who hold no office of government to effect the way our nations have to act under the world treaties.

Permission to speak?

Perhaps I haven't heard very well the responses by the other delegates, but I wonder why very few people, if any, have pointed out the problems with a "donations-only" group. What exactly are the chances that such a group would actually receive the amount of money needed to fulfill its duties? Some nations whose economy depends on businesses that create such waste could simply discourage citizens from donating to these organizations. What happens when the "non-profit, donations only" organizations for each town and city don't have any sort of financial support? The citizens of Puffinstuff, highly opinionated all, could easily shut down such organizations by not donating, and chances are they will.

Furthermore, does anybody see the point in having 3 such organizations per city? Shouldn't the country itself be allowed to decide upon the amount of organizations needed in each city? I'm fairly sure that a podunk town somewhere in the backwoods of Puffinstuff would not need three organizations to keep the undefined "wastes" from getting out of hand.

The biggest problem with this resolution is the sensational language in which it is written. "We can't afford not to do this"? "We NEED to start non-profit, donations only organizations"? Another recent thread mentioning the resignation of one nation from the UN mentioned something about the "feel good" trend within UN resolutions. The "Stop dumping-Start Cleaning" resolution is a prime example of such legislation, using bold language to draw support and offering only vague solutions to a growing problem.

What good will such a nebulous resolution do for the environment as a whole? I would love to see a clean and healthy world, but this resolution will not provide such a place.

What good will such a nebulous resolution do for the environment as a whole? I would love to see a clean and healthy world, but this resolution will not provide such a place.

The Commonwealth of Abysseria agrees completely with the delegate from Puffinstuff, and as such has voted against this resolution. It is impractical and impossible to legislate effectively.

The U.N. must not allow itself to transform into a paper tiger that no nation will respect.

Use your vote to defeat this resolution!

As a relatively new arrival in the world and to the UN, The Republic of Little orange kittens is aware that we do not have much power in these situations. However, we feel compelled to second the opinions expressed by many here today that more thought needs to be put into the resolutions placed before the UN. These resolutions, if passed, affect us all in all of our diversity.

Having the freedom to speak your mind and vote your conscience carries with it the responsibility of doing so in a wise fashion. Voting for a resolution simply because it 'seems like the right thing to do' is not voting responsibly. We have seen that many of the resolutions passed by this august body have been cleverly worded to appeal to people's sense of 'rightness' and we strongly suspect that a well-worded propsal to save the kudzu would pass.

OOC: I apologize for not responding earlier. My internet has been out all week.

IC: There is currently a new proposal in the UN for Oceanic Waste Dumping II.

I believe it to be more effective than the resolution we passed last week. However, I still fail to see a definition of toxic waste, and what levels of those toxic wastes are illegal.

I will be contacting all interested nations (by telegram) to help draft a new proposal.

This is the same message I've posted in three other threads.

Press Release from the United Socilaist States of Kholodsk:

The USSK is officially opposed to the "Stop Dumping, Start Cleaning" legislation pending on the UN floor. However, it must be made clear that we are in full support of environmental cleaning and preservation. Our country spends billions of dollars a year on keeping our natural landscape clean and beautiful as well as regulating businesses which use dangerous chemicals. Also, the previous resolution, which banned oceanic waste dumping, enjoyed our full support. The current resolution is admirable in its zeal to prevent the destruction of our world's environs, but it is blatantly over-regulatory and steps too far in mandating a country's sovereignty. The UN exists to foster communication between countries and provide general rules by which we rule our countries, not micromanage our economies and social programs.

As the Incorperated States of Tom Joad and Kingdom of JBRoyal have previously stated, this resolution will cause an immediate rise of the bureaucratic regulatory state. While the USSK finds the aforemention countries' lack of existing environmental protections unfortunate, it is not within the UN's realm to dictate they follow a set standard. The USSK respectfully requests that the Federation of Whoway immediately withdraw its resolution from consideration so we may continue to more relevant business that the UN was charted for.

Signed,
For People of the United Socialist States of Kholodsk,
General Secretary Nikolai Famich Myasnikov

As a relatively new arrival in the world and to the UN, The Republic of Little orange kittens is aware that we do not have much power in these situations. However, we feel compelled to second the opinions expressed by many here today that more thought needs to be put into the resolutions placed before the UN. These resolutions, if passed, affect us all in all of our diversity.

Having the freedom to speak your mind and vote your conscience carries with it the responsibility of doing so in a wise fashion. Voting for a resolution simply because it 'seems like the right thing to do' is not voting responsibly. We have seen that many of the resolutions passed by this august body have been cleverly worded to appeal to people's sense of 'rightness' and we strongly suspect that a well-worded propsal to save the kudzu would pass.

Hear, hear.

We would almost see it like a challenge to get a propsal to save the kudzu passed. Or something similar silly. If it would help make people realize the situation.