Sarcodina
05-07-2005, 18:04
I'd first like everyone to read resolution 34 and 35...then read resolution 35 again...then look at the proposal introduced by "wegason" of whom I co-wrote the repeal with others as well.
Oceanic Waste Dumping
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Giedi
Description: 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.
Votes For: 12,645
Votes Against: 2,286
Implemented: Thu Oct 30 2003
Stop dumping - Start Cleaning
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Whoway
Description: Our nations have gotten far 'out-of-hand.' Should it be illegal to dump toxic wastes? Yes! And there needs to be a more stiff punishment. We need to not only make it illegal to dump wastes into our streams, oceans, and city water removal systems; but we need to start non-profit, donation only organizations to start cleaning up what we have already destroyed! These organizations couldn’t harm our economies any, they are donation only; therefore they also won’t cause a tax raise. We can’t afford to not do this!
I hereby propose that we; UN members:
1.) Make it illegal, where not already, to dump wastes of any sort into public water systems. i.e.: Rivers, streams, oceans, ponds, city water removal systems, etc.
2.) Require business to “filter” all liquid wastes.
3.) Breaking the 'Dumping' law requires either 5 to 7 years in a federal prison, fine up to $10,000 or 100 to 500 hours of community service. Governments court system's decision.
4.) The immediate government authorization to start a minimum of 3 non-profit, donation only 'cleaning' and 'citing' organizations per town or city. They will be authorized to distribute citations for dumping and use community service workers to clean up after ‘dumpers.’
Votes For: 9,429
Votes Against: 5,490
Implemented: Tue Nov 4 2003
Repeal "Stop dumping - Start Cleaning"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution
Category: Repeal
Resolution: #35
Proposed by: Wegason
Description: UN Resolution #35: Stop dumping - Start Cleaning (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.
Argument:
In strong support of the sentiment of Resolution 35 though feeling that Resolution 34 (Oceanic Waste Dumping) is far better spoken and more feasible for this international body to support,
Moreover, citing the many uses of either incorrect or poorly worded grammatical statements occur within the resolution (see line 1 “Should it be illegal to dump toxic wastes? Yes! And there needs to be a more stiff punishment”, line 5 “These organizations couldn’t harm our economies any, they are donation only; therefore they also won’t cause a tax raise. We can’t afford to not do this!” and more) that do not bode well for the professionalism that this body strives towards,
Moreover, noting the various improbabilities and flaws in the actual policy initiation, including though not exclusively:
a-Poor Standards for Law Enforcement without proper distinction between offenses both large and small see Section 3 “Breaking the 'Dumping' law requires either 5 to 7 years in a federal prison, fine up to $10,000 or 100 to 500 hours of community service. Governments court system's decision.”
b-Poor Limits Set, Section 1, for example uses “etc.” in list of illegal public water systems to dump in as well as not designating if private dumping is fine (for instance in many nationstates allow for selling of their beaches),
c-Lack of Definition of terms designated with a “”, see Section 2, “Require business to “filter” all liquid wastes”, that causes lack of clarity for many businesses by not defining what “filter” is or if it is up to the businesses or government.
Be it Repealed: Resolution #35 “Stop Dumping-Start Cleaning”
Co-Authored with Sarcodina
Please feel free to debate topic and argue points. There are more reasons than I wrote why this repeal is not only unneccessary but dangerous to follow in its current wording.
Oceanic Waste Dumping
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Giedi
Description: 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.
Votes For: 12,645
Votes Against: 2,286
Implemented: Thu Oct 30 2003
Stop dumping - Start Cleaning
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Whoway
Description: Our nations have gotten far 'out-of-hand.' Should it be illegal to dump toxic wastes? Yes! And there needs to be a more stiff punishment. We need to not only make it illegal to dump wastes into our streams, oceans, and city water removal systems; but we need to start non-profit, donation only organizations to start cleaning up what we have already destroyed! These organizations couldn’t harm our economies any, they are donation only; therefore they also won’t cause a tax raise. We can’t afford to not do this!
I hereby propose that we; UN members:
1.) Make it illegal, where not already, to dump wastes of any sort into public water systems. i.e.: Rivers, streams, oceans, ponds, city water removal systems, etc.
2.) Require business to “filter” all liquid wastes.
3.) Breaking the 'Dumping' law requires either 5 to 7 years in a federal prison, fine up to $10,000 or 100 to 500 hours of community service. Governments court system's decision.
4.) The immediate government authorization to start a minimum of 3 non-profit, donation only 'cleaning' and 'citing' organizations per town or city. They will be authorized to distribute citations for dumping and use community service workers to clean up after ‘dumpers.’
Votes For: 9,429
Votes Against: 5,490
Implemented: Tue Nov 4 2003
Repeal "Stop dumping - Start Cleaning"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution
Category: Repeal
Resolution: #35
Proposed by: Wegason
Description: UN Resolution #35: Stop dumping - Start Cleaning (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.
Argument:
In strong support of the sentiment of Resolution 35 though feeling that Resolution 34 (Oceanic Waste Dumping) is far better spoken and more feasible for this international body to support,
Moreover, citing the many uses of either incorrect or poorly worded grammatical statements occur within the resolution (see line 1 “Should it be illegal to dump toxic wastes? Yes! And there needs to be a more stiff punishment”, line 5 “These organizations couldn’t harm our economies any, they are donation only; therefore they also won’t cause a tax raise. We can’t afford to not do this!” and more) that do not bode well for the professionalism that this body strives towards,
Moreover, noting the various improbabilities and flaws in the actual policy initiation, including though not exclusively:
a-Poor Standards for Law Enforcement without proper distinction between offenses both large and small see Section 3 “Breaking the 'Dumping' law requires either 5 to 7 years in a federal prison, fine up to $10,000 or 100 to 500 hours of community service. Governments court system's decision.”
b-Poor Limits Set, Section 1, for example uses “etc.” in list of illegal public water systems to dump in as well as not designating if private dumping is fine (for instance in many nationstates allow for selling of their beaches),
c-Lack of Definition of terms designated with a “”, see Section 2, “Require business to “filter” all liquid wastes”, that causes lack of clarity for many businesses by not defining what “filter” is or if it is up to the businesses or government.
Be it Repealed: Resolution #35 “Stop Dumping-Start Cleaning”
Co-Authored with Sarcodina
Please feel free to debate topic and argue points. There are more reasons than I wrote why this repeal is not only unneccessary but dangerous to follow in its current wording.