NationStates Jolt Archive

Ladies, gentlemen, and assorted beings of ambiguous gender,

Allow me to crave a moment of your time. If you could all stop defenestrating one another for just a few minutes... Thank you.

Now, my delegation is preparing to resubmit ye olde Climate Refugee Commission, which veterans among you remember and love. Or loathe. Or are completely indifferent about. Anyway, we're in no particular hurry to toss it out into the bedlam of the voting process, or submit ourselves to a TG campaign, so for now I'd like to invite you all to suggest any changes and improvements you see fit. The text below is the exact same text that was submitted previously. It failed, so maybe it needs to be tweaked a little. Have at it.


Climate Refugee Commission

THE UNITED NATIONS,

DEFINING a “climate refugee” as a person whose home has become uninhabitable due to permanent or indefinite climate changes, including but not limited to recurrent natural disasters, flooding, and long-term recorded changes in temperature of 2°C or more; or: as a person whose home is deemed likely, by the Climate Refugee Commission, to become uninhabitable within the next ten years;

URGING all member nations to do their utmost to lessen and prevent adverse human impacts on the climate;

RECOMMENDING that affected member nations call for aid from other nations, and allow national and international aid teams the maximum possible opportunities to distribute aid and access affected areas;

FURTHER URGING all member nations with significant areas of elevation or other means of refuge from lowland flooding to offer sanctuary to evacuees from vulnerable member nations;

HEREBY CREATES the Climate Refugee Commission (CRC), consisting of a panel of independent climate scientists and resettlement experts.

The CRC shall:

1. Immediately begin collecting data measuring the impact on climate change of industrial and other human activities within each nation. Within three years the CRC, using this data, shall establish what proportion of harmful impact is attributable to each nation. These figures are to be updated every three years.

2. Receive and rule on appeals from climate refugees who have been denied immigration to at least four countries.

3. At its discretion, require each nation to accept a number of climate refugees proportional to that nation’s adverse impact on the climate, as calculated by the CRC. Alternately, and with the CRC’s consent, a nation may choose to contribute a proportionally calculated sum of money, infrastructure and/or aid to other resettlement plans.

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles

Dear Mr. Boco,

I regret to inform you, despite the positive potential this proposal has, I will have to, encourage my country to vote against it should Climate Refugee Commission ever come to vote under the current wording.

My first issue with it lays in the weakness of it. The proposal itself doesn't actually do anything to help climate refugees, save from forming the CRC.

This proposal does form the CRC, however it does too little to actually help refugees. It only forces nations to assist climate refugees in immigration, which should really be a last resort.

As for its designation, this proposal would only impact immigration of climate refugees. If it had a more powerful effect on the environment, I could see it affecting 'All Businesses', but now it only encourages environmental protection and helps climate refugees immigrate.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to my concerns on the proposal.

Borislav Yamamoto
Chief of Zanyo Environmental Impact Board

Having consulted with my government I am pleased to say that the Veblenian Republic agrees that the recognition of the impending climate crisis and its effects on the population is a pressing and neccessary issue. Chancellor Grunndersonn has conveyed his support, in principle, for the creation of such a commission described above and indicates his willingness to lobby the People's Assembly to provide for the resettlement of recognized climate refugees as such issues arise.

There was some concern raised at the Cabinet level over the ability of a Climate Refugee Commission to accurately predict areas of the planet which would become uninhabitable within a decade. Veblenian experts were split on the opinion that climate science has advanced to the point where such prognostication is feasible, and some senior government officials suggested that errors in judgement or, perish the thought, political motivations may define climate refugees over-cautiously.

The potential for undue strain on governments in resettlement and sheer confusion arising from wild predictions could undermine what is otherwise a worthy and useful resolution. As such, I have been instructed by Chancellor Grunndersonn to request that the definition of a "climate refugee" be amended to exclude the predictions of the CRC. Regrettably, Veblenia's support for the motion would be contigent upon this redefinition.


Ignatius Thorwald
UN Ambassador
Democratic Republic of Veblenia

Dear Mr. Boco,

I regret to inform you, despite the positive potential this proposal has, I will have to, encourage my country to vote against it should Climate Refugee Commission ever come to vote under the current wording.

My first issue with it lays in the weakness of it. The proposal itself doesn't actually do anything to help climate refugees, save from forming the CRC.

This proposal does form the CRC, however it does too little to actually help refugees. It only forces nations to assist climate refugees in immigration, which should really be a last resort.

As for its designation, this proposal would only impact immigration of climate refugees. If it had a more powerful effect on the environment, I could see it affecting 'All Businesses', but now it only encourages environmental protection and helps climate refugees immigrate.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to my concerns on the proposal.

Borislav Yamamoto
Chief of Zanyo Environmental Impact Board

Dear Mr. Yamamoto,

I have taken note of your concerns. However, I must point out that this proposal would in fact do a great deal for climate refugees: it would ensure that they are rehoused, whatever happens. Currently, no such legislation exists.

Regarding its "weakness", I must point out that many opponents of the proposal last time opposed it for the opposite reason. The current wording is the result of more people decrying it as "too strong" than "too weak". I'm sure you understand some balance must be found.

However, if you have concrete suggestions as to how the proposal might offer additional help to refugees, my government would be glad to consider them. But please bear in mind that this proposal cannot do everything. It is deliberately restricted in scope, so as to be highly effective on a particular issue. If this proposal passes, at least you can be certain no climate refugees will be left homeless.


Having consulted with my government I am pleased to say that the Veblenian Republic agrees that the recognition of the impending climate crisis and its effects on the population is a pressing and neccessary issue. Chancellor Grunndersonn has conveyed his support, in principle, for the creation of such a commission described above and indicates his willingness to lobby the People's Assembly to provide for the resettlement of recognized climate refugees as such issues arise.

Thank you.


There was some concern raised at the Cabinet level over the ability of a Climate Refugee Commission to accurately predict areas of the planet which would become uninhabitable within a decade. Veblenian experts were split on the opinion that climate science has advanced to the point where such prognostication is feasible, and some senior government officials suggested that errors in judgement or, perish the thought, political motivations may define climate refugees over-cautiously.

A decade, within this context, is a very short span of time. For instance, the process of land salination due to rising water levels on low-lying atolls is a concrete, unquestionable and irreversible process which enables observers to knew that an area of land will soon become uninhabitable. Regarding political motivations, I can put your fears to rest: UN commissions are composed of politically neutral experts selected for their specific task. (OOC: It's widely agreed in game terms than UN commissions are composed either of gnomes or of faceless scientists of no specific nationality, who therefore have no political allegiance, and who do exactly what the proposal requires of them. It's one of the game rules that nations are not represented on UN committees.)


As such, I have been instructed by Chancellor Grunndersonn to request that the definition of a "climate refugee" be amended to exclude the predictions of the CRC. Regrettably, Veblenia's support for the motion would be contigent upon this redefinition.


I hope my point above has made this unncessary. But if not, how would a climate refugee be defined? Who else but a UN committee can make such a definition in an impartial, factual and accurate manner?


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles

We think this proposal has great potential and hope to be able to support it. We strongly favor a "polluter pays" system. It not only provides some relief for affected people, it establishes an economic incentive to reduce the pollution. That said, there is one article in the draft which gives us considerable pause.

2. Receive and rule on appeals from climate refugees who have been denied immigration to at least four countries.

We're not sure what this means. In the world of law, an appeal is generally understood as a request for some higher authority to overrule a decision made at a lower level. If this is the intent here, we see the only possible overruling as forcing one or other of the refusers to accept the refugees. If this is the intent, we will be forced to strongly oppose the proposal. We insist on retaining complete and unfettered authority to determine who shall and shall not enter our territory.

If, on the other hand, appeal is used in the sense of a request for assistance, we'd have no problem with that. But then we think the article needs some serious work to make the intent and effect clear. The CRC rules on this appeal. What happens then? Perhaps tying the article to the following one would be in order.

We're also concerned about the phrase, "with the CRC's consent" in Article 3. But let's leave that for another time.

We look forward to the distinguished author's response and will be happy to offer any assistance we can in resolving this concern.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/9671/sandymartinez2brs8.jpg

Ambassador Thwerdock, thank you for your comments. With leave from my esteemed Ariddian colleagues, I'd like, hopefully, to provide a satisfying answer. This is the first time I take part in any discussion at the United Nations level, so please do forgive me for being something of a novice. I'm here representing West Ariddia, on account of the fact that my country will soon be joining the Ariddian Federation.

Now, let's see...

We strongly favor a "polluter pays" system. It not only provides some relief for affected people, it establishes an economic incentive to reduce the pollution.

Thank you. I hope representatives of other nations will take an equally responsible view on this issue. I should add, of course, that any "payment" required would be -as you can work out yourself, statistically- microscopic. The idea is however indeed to to encourage responsible practices.

And, above all, to ensure that all refugees receive necessary aid. Which is surely what we are all concerned about most.


We're not sure what [clause 2] means. In the world of law, an appeal is generally understood as a request for some higher authority to overrule a decision made at a lower level. If this is the intent here, we see the only possible overruling as forcing one or other of the refusers to accept the refugees. If this is the intent, we will be forced to strongly oppose the proposal. We insist on retaining complete and unfettered authority to determine who shall and shall not enter our territory.

If, on the other hand, appeal is used in the sense of a request for assistance, we'd have no problem with that. But then we think the article needs some serious work to make the intent and effect clear. The CRC rules on this appeal. What happens then? Perhaps tying the article to the following one would be in order.

The term "appeal" is used here in the sense of request. The CRC will not be empowered to overrule a decision made previously at a national level.

What is clause 2 all about? Essentially, its aim is to limit the coercive aspect of the Commission, and to encourage nations to resolve climate refugee issues by themselves, through bilateral and multilateral processes. We expect refugees to apply for aid or asylum directly to a foreign government, or rather in most cases through the medium of their own country's government. The CRC will play no part at this stage. If an applicant's asylum request is turned down by the country he or she applied to, she turns to another country, still without the CRC being involved. Then, if necessary, another, then another. Only when an applicant has been turned down by four different countries does the CRC intervene, to determine whether the applicant is a genuine refugee, and, if so, to ensure that he or she is rehoused.

As you can see, the CRC's function will be to step in when all else fails.

That is where clause 2 leads to clause 3.

Perhaps the term "appeal" should be reworded? How about this?

2. Receive and rule on asylum applications from climate refugees who have been denied immigration to at least four countries.


Sandy Martinez,
Ariddian Isles

Comrade Representative Martinez, it is my understanding from your comments and from my reading of the text that no nation may be forced to accept refugees. This is correct, yes?

One of the problems that I can forsee arising is that many delegations will fear that their nations can be forced to accept refugees by CRC. That is how they will interpret it. Would it be possible to add specific language to assuage these fears?

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

Somewhat (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030195&postcount=66) Redundant (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13195935&postcount=1).

Comrade Chairman Dzerzhinsky. You're quite right: no nation would be forced to accept refugees. Except under extreme circumstances, which is why we have those few words "and with the CRC’s consent" in clause 3.

Allow me, if I may, to be more specific.

In most cases, when a crisis occurs and people are displaced and made homeless by climate change, most of those people will presumably be resettled within the borders of their own nation, with assistance from their own government. The exception to that would be very, very small, low-lying island nations with a population of a few thousand or a few tens of thousands. When a country, for whatever reason, cannot relocate its own people on its own territory, I expect bilateral and multilateral talks to begin in order to find a new home for the climate refugees. As long as such discussions are happening, and people are in fact being rehoused, the CRC won't intervene.

The CRC will intervene in those rare cases when a group of people are not rehoused, and are left as refugees with nowhere to settle. When that happens, the CRC will assess whether they are indeed refugees under the definition provided in this resolution. If they are, the CRC will, under the terms of clause 3, open talks with specific nations, propertionally to each nation's adverse impact on the climate, and will request that some of those nations take in a small number of refugees. Nations will remain free to opt out of taking in refugees, by providing aid instead, such as funding to help those refugees be resettled in some third country.

Only if a refugee is still left with nowhere to go, in the extremely improbable hypothesis that there is no country willing to grant him refuge, may the CRC require that he be settled in a specific nation.

To reassure the esteemed delegates present here, allow me to build a hypothetical situation. In this fictional situation, nation A is composed of low-lying coral atolls, and has a population of, say, 74,394. Rising sea levels and the resulting ground salination, combined with the fact that the nation's highest 'peak' is only three metres above sea level, will make the country entirely uninhabitable within a decade or less. The government, for obvious reasons, cannot resettle its own people. It opens discussions with nations B, C and D, who accept to take in 15,000 refugees each.

For the remaining 29,000 or so, the government attempts discussions with other countries. Eventually, all but 426 people are resettled. Those 426 have had their applications turned down by four countries or more each. This is where the CRC steps in.

The CRC may request that a specific nation take in these 426 people. If no nation is willing to do that, the CRC will, for example, approach 40 or so highly polluting nations, and ask them to take in an average of 10 refugees each. If some of those countries refuse, they will not be coerced, but will provide some form of aid instead. A highly polluting nation will find itself taking in, say, 24 refugees. Their resettlement within that nation will be partly funded by one or more of the nations that have opted to provide aid, so the cost to the receiving nation will be less than microscopic.

As you can see, there would appear to be no reason, under this plan, for any refugee to be left with nowhere to go. But let's imagine that, when all is said and done, the CRC is left with three refugees who have not be accepted anywhere. The CRC may then require that one or more nations grant asylum to these three people. Given the hundreds of thousands of nations within these United Nations, it is statistically almost unthinkable that such a situation would ever arise.

Now, before you accuse me of having picked a small country with a small population as an example, let's imagine a larger country faced with a climate-induced disaster. Let's imagine a country of 740 million people, 12% of whom live on or near the coast, and let's imagine that 65% of the coast is abruptly flooded. If the damage is temporary, and these people will eventually be able to return home, the CRC will not be called upon. So let's imagine the damage is permanent, and the area has become permanently uninhabitable, leaving a whopping 4,440,000 people homeless. What then?

Well, first of all, their government will presumably try to resettle them within their own country. Let's imagine it's a very poor country, and it can only resettle 3 million people. From this point on, we repeat the same process as above. The government enters discussions with other countries. Let's say 1,800,000 people eventually find new homes. That leaves over two and a half million people who still need to go somewhere.

There are, at present, 20,751 member nations in the United Nations. On average, that means each country would be asked to welcome 125 refugees. Of course, that's only an average figure. Some countries may be asked to take in far more. Say, up to 800, if the nation’s adverse impact on the climate is particularly high. Let's assume such a country accepts to take in 800 refugees. That number is not huge. Especially when you consider that resettlement costs will mostly be met by other nations, who have opted out of receiving refugees themselves. As you can see, there is virtually no pressure involved at any stage, and a situation in which a nation would be required to take in even a dozen or so refugees would be almost inconceivable.

I should add that the end result of this situation is the outcome of a series of hypotheticals, all of which are built on "worst case scenario". In most cases, the CRC will probably not be called upon at all, and multilateral discussions with no CRC involvment will be sufficient.

The CRC's purpose is to ensure that climate refugees will always be resettled. The sacrifice demanded of nations is below minuscule, and is extremely flexible, too.

I should add, in conclusion, that if an environmental catastrophe does happen, and leaves people homeless and forced to flee their country, those people will in any case have to go somewhere. Past experience, from when this proposal was first submitted, has shown that some delegations like to pretend they would simply be able to ignore the problem. That's not only selfish, it's also foolish. If people have to be resettled, they have to be resettled. The truism speaks for itself. The CRC will be there to step in when required, if all else fails, to regulate the flow if nobody else can regulate it, and to ensure that climate refugees all find new homes.

I hope that's answered your question. I'll be glad to offer any further clarification.


Sandy Martinez,
Ariddian Isles

Somewhat (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030195&postcount=66) Redundant (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13195935&postcount=1).

No it isn't, esteemed Ambassador whose name I can't quite see from here.

The Refugee Protection Act does not address the same issues as the CRC at all. For one thing, it deals specifically with persons displaced by conflict and warfare. For another, it does nothing to ensure that refugees will necessarily be resettled.

As for the Air Pollution Convention, it is not rendundent with the CRC in any way, shape or form. If you believe the contrary, please provide specifics.


Sandy Martinez,
Ariddian Isles

*George Willing stands and begins to speak*

First, I would like to say that I appreciate the capacity to answer the questions posed to my leader, Trey Dreizehn. He has henceforth delegate all ambassadorial duties to me, until such a time as he revokes them.

That said, the Refugee Protection Act was indeed intended to only deal with Refugees displaced by war, but it's wording would include any other groups deemed "non-combatant refugees" as well. One must remember that "non-combatant refugees" does not necessarily mean they came from a place rife with combat. If the exodus is due to climate change, they are still "non-combatant refugees" and governed by that act.

As for the Air Pollution Convention, the UNEA is already charged with collection of data detailing pollution. Trey did not intend to say the Air Pollution Convention directly conflicted with your resolution, he merely meant to enlighten you as to the existence of a current committee you could utilize.

OOC: Just as a note, you can use the UNEA instead of a new committee. If the original resolution creating the UNEA is repealed and yours is on the books, the UNEA will merely be preserved for your purposes only. We don't have an infinite number of gnomes after all. Well we do, but I don't like them.

That said, the Refugee Protection Act was indeed intended to only deal with Refugees displaced by war, but it's wording would include any other groups deemed "non-combatant refugees"I'd have to disagree. The operative articles of a resolution aren't necessarily separable. Article 2 of the RPA is quite clear in specifying the resolution's applicability to refugees as the result of war....responsibility for the well-being of non-combatant refugees displaced from their homes during time of warSuch wording prohibits reliance on the RPA for climate-displaced persons.

...the UNEA is already charged with collection of data detailing pollution.

OOC: Just as a note, you can use the UNEA instead of a new committee.The UNEA is indeed charged with data collection for a number of areas of pollution (air and water to name two). And it would be a good thing to have the CRC and UNEA share the data collected. However, the UNEA has no business being charged with any of the other duties proposed for the CRC.
----

Although "polluter pays" is satisfying in a retributive way (and we Rubinans loves our vengeance) I can't help but think that it is somewhat irrelevant in this case. Natural disasters as such are not readily attributable to any single source (excepting plots in various spy-vs.spy entertainment) and in the case of the severe climate change noted in the proposal, the problem would be so widespread and so devastating as to render charging any one entity the cost of relocating peoples moot.

I wonder if a "no-fault" approach with nations contributing proportionately by some characteristic (population size, industrial-capacity, economy?) would be more appropriate.

I'd also like to recommend that the CRC be charged with developing plans for large population relocations, including coordination with such bodies as the IRC. And as well, including a voluntary register of nations willing to take refugees and the number of persons said nation is willing to accept.

Ben Whitehorse
Special Ambassador to the UN for Environmental Affairs
Rubina

I'd have to disagree. The operative articles of a resolution aren't necessarily separable. Article 2 of the RPA is quite clear in specifying the resolution's applicability to refugees as the result of war.Such wording prohibits reliance on the RPA for climate-displaced persons.

I suppose you could be right, but I don't quite see it that way. While article 2 does indeed demonstrate the resolutions intent, it is a singular reference. One could even classify any time as "times of war"(this is after all a dangerous world). The RPA doesn't require to much stretching to include these climate refugees even if one assumes that article 2 narrows it's inclusiveness.

I however take a different tack, in that article 2 merely "accepts responsibility for" non-combatant refugees in war time. It doesn't define non-combatant refugees as only those displaced in war. If it doesn't define it such, then the resolution would cover these "climate refugees" as well.

That said, the Refugee Protection Act was indeed intended to only deal with Refugees displaced by war, but it's wording would include any other groups deemed "non-combatant refugees" as well. One must remember that "non-combatant refugees" does not necessarily mean they came from a place rife with combat. If the exodus is due to climate change, they are still "non-combatant refugees" and governed by that act.

Ambassador Willing, I must agree on this point with the honoured representative of Rubina. Clause 2 of the Refugee Protection Act refers to "non-combatant refugees displaced from their homes during time of war". Clauses 3 & 4 both apply exclusively to "these non-combatant refugees" - namely, those referred to in clause 2. There is nothing within the RPA to offer any guarantee of assistance to climate refugees.


Although "polluter pays" is satisfying in a retributive way (and we Rubinans loves our vengeance) I can't help but think that it is somewhat irrelevant in this case. Natural disasters as such are not readily attributable to any single source (excepting plots in various spy-vs.spy entertainment) and in the case of the severe climate change noted in the proposal, the problem would be so widespread and so devastating as to render charging any one entity the cost of relocating peoples moot.


This isn't actually about vengeance. And in no case would one nation be singled out to meet all the costs; they'd be spread over a large number of nations. It's merely a question of fairness. The principle of "polluter pays", in this instance, isn't designed to "punish" polluters, but rather to ensure that those who pollute very little are not faced with having to pay for the consequences of the actions of those who pollute a lot.


I wonder if a "no-fault" approach with nations contributing proportionately by some characteristic (population size, industrial-capacity, economy?) would be more appropriate.


It could be. I'd be interested to hear what other nations' views are on this possibility. If there's strong support for it, the proposal can be changed accordingly.


Sandy Martinez,
Ariddian Isles

I'd also like to recommend that the CRC be charged with developing plans for large population relocations, including coordination with such bodies as the IRC. And as well, including a voluntary register of nations willing to take refugees and the number of persons said nation is willing to accept.


OOC: I suppose that could be added, yes. I was just thinking that it was fairly implicit, and I didn't want to make the proposal too long. Still, maybe something like this?

4. Develop standardised efficient procedures for large-scale population relocations, in coordination with appropriate national and international organisations.

5. Maintain a voluntary register of nations willing to accept refugees, specifying the number of persons said nation is willing to accept.


OOC: Just as a note, you can use the UNEA instead of a new committee. If the original resolution creating the UNEA is repealed and yours is on the books, the UNEA will merely be preserved for your purposes only. We don't have an infinite number of gnomes after all. Well we do, but I don't like them.

OOC: I like your suggestion, but it seems to me it might be a house of cards violation. Not to mention that it would be a sort of rewrite of the APC, and I'm not sure that would be legal either. Mods?

OOC (and not a Mod, of course):

The Air Pollution Convention successfully mentioned both the UNEA and the IMO, without being blocked on 'House of Cards' grounds, so it would seem safe enough for you to employ one or both of those agencies here as well.


(I would have posted this as The IMO (http://www.nationstates.net/the_imo), but their verification seems to have gone wrong...)

OOC: Good point. Well then, let' see....

How about this?


THE UNITED NATIONS,

DEFINING a “climate refugee” as a person whose home has become uninhabitable due to permanent or indefinite climate changes, including but not limited to recurrent natural disasters, flooding, and long-term recorded changes in temperature of 2°C or more; or: as a person whose home is deemed likely, by the UN Environmental Agency (UNEA), to become uninhabitable within the next ten years;

URGING all member nations to do their utmost to lessen and prevent adverse human impacts on the climate;

RECOMMENDING that affected member nations call for aid from other nations, and allow national and international aid teams the maximum possible opportunities to distribute aid and access affected areas;

FURTHER URGING all member nations with significant areas of elevation or other means of refuge from lowland flooding to offer sanctuary to evacuees from vulnerable member nations;

HEREBY TASKS the UNEA with ensuring the resettlement of climate refugees who have been unable to secure resettlement by other means.

The UNEA shall:

1. Immediately begin collecting data measuring the impact on climate change of industrial and other human activities within each nation. Within three years the UNEA, using this data, shall establish what proportion of harmful impact is attributable to each nation. These figures are to be updated every three years.

2. Receive and rule on asylum applications from climate refugees who have been denied immigration to at least four countries.

3. At its discretion, require each nation to accept a number of climate refugees proportional to that nation’s adverse impact on the climate, as calculated by the UNEA. Alternately, and with the UNEA’s consent, a nation may choose to contribute a proportionally calculated sum of money, infrastructure and/or aid to other resettlement plans.

4. Develop standardised efficient procedures for large-scale population relocations, in coordination with appropriate national and international organisations.

5. Maintain a voluntary register of nations willing to accept refugees, specifying the number of persons said nation is willing to accept.

Look, as long as you're creating a registry of nations willing to take in climate refugees, and a system for coordinating mass migrations, you may as well take out the requirement that the nations doing the damage take them in. If they're the ones responsible for damage to the global environment, why the hell would you want to send them there?

Look, as long as you're creating a registry of nations willing to take in climate refugees, and a system for coordinating mass migrations, you may as well take out the requirement that the nations doing the damage take them in. If they're the ones responsible for damage to the global environment, why the hell would you want to send them there?

The long answer to that question can be found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13232393&postcount=9). I'd be loathe to repeat it all, so I'll try a short answer. A nation responsible for environmental damage is not necessarily an unpleasant place to live. (OOC: IRL, Australia is the most polluting country per capita, but people are flocking to live there.) Quite the reverse, in fact; it may offer a high standard of quality of life. More importantly, the whole point of this proposal is to resettle people when they're not being resettled. When there are people who, at the end of the day, are left with nowhere to go. Such people must go somewhere.

Why is it advantageous for your country to support this proposal? Let's imagine a group of three hundred people who have not been accepted as refugees anywhere. If the CRC doesn't exist, these people will nonetheless -obviously- have to go somewhere. They may organise together to cross a border illegally and settle en masse in a same country. That situation would presumably not be desirable for the "receiving" country.

What does the CRC do? It makes sure that these people settle in countries where they will have a status as legal immigrants, and where their resettlement will be funded mostly by countries who have opted not to receive them. The receiving countries will each receive fewer people, will know who they are and where they are, and will face fewer costs than they would if there were no CRC.

The last part of your question concerns the issue of whether or not the "polluter pays" principle should be applied. I've already addressed that by saying that my government is perfectly willing to amend that if there is a strong consensus in this Assembly. If a significant number of delegations would prefer to see other criteria -such as size, population size and economic strength- be the decisive factors, then the proposal will be reworded accordingly.


Sandy Martinez,
Ariddian Isles


OOC: In other words, everyone, which do you think would be best?
* Countries which pollute more take in more refugees?; or
* Countries which are bigger, more populous and have a stronger economy take in more refugees?

Um, just because a nation's good at polluting doesn't mean it's a pleasant place to live. That's rather a silly argument in favor of this "polluter-pays" provision.

If we're just going to rehash old arguments, though, I'd ask (again) why you would want people to move to a nation that may not want them? If you're already compiling a database of nations that do, why foist the refugees on those that don't? Forcing nations to accept refugees, if you'll recall from the last debate, is an horrific infringement upon their sovereignty, and is one of the main reasons this legislation was shot down the first time. Seems to me if you wanted this reincarnation to pass, you'd revise it so it's more to the General Assembly's liking. You say you're willing to amend this if there is "strong consensus in this Assembly." And what? 6,693 against votes isn't a strong enough consensus for you?

Here's a thought: Catalog the willing nations, set up the necessary protocols for mass-migration of climate refugees, and force the polluters to foot the bill. That sounds workable. At the very least, we could live with it; we wouldn't vote for it, but we could live with it.

Cdr. Chiang etc.

Um, just because a nation's good at polluting doesn't mean it's a pleasant place to live. That's rather a silly argument in favor of this "polluter-pays" provision.

That's not at all what I said. What I said was that a nation is not necessarily an unpleasant place to live just because it's highly polluting.


If we're just going to rehash old arguments, though, I'd ask (again) why you would want people to move to a nation that may not want them?

That's actually a good question. I've already replied to it, in essence, but I'll try to be even clearer and more to the point.

Ideally, we wouldn't want people to move to nations where they're not wanted. If you read the proposal carefully, along with clarifications I've already provided, you'll note that the CRC will, in most cases involving the resettlement of climate refugees, not intervene. The CRC will intervene only if some refugees have nowhere to go, and are, apparently, not wanted anywhere. Since they must, in any case, go somewhere, the CRC will ensure that their resettlement does happen, in a smooth and fair manner for all involved.

The CRC will ensure that resettlement happens in a legal, well-organised and affordable manner for receiving countries, splitting the minuscule burden between many countries, and making sure that those who refuse to take in refugees assist in the costs to resettle them elsewhere. Or, to look at it the other way, that countries which do take in the refugees face little or no financial burden in doing so.

What's the alternative, if there is no CRC? Illegal migration, with higher costs resulting for unwilling receiving nations.


If you're already compiling a database of nations that do, why foist the refugees on those that don't?

If you pay close attention, Commander, you'll see that compiling a database of willing nations is intended, amongst other reasons, to try and ensure that refugees are never foisted on unwilling nations.

So when would unwilling nations be faced with the unlikely possibility of perhaps having to contribute a small amount of money or infrastructure to help settle refugees elsewhere - or even, in extreme and highly implausible cases, have to take refugees themselves? Only if the number of refugees is so great that the initial list of willing nations simply cannot cope.


Here's a thought: Catalog the willing nations, set up the necessary protocols for mass-migration of climate refugees, and force the polluters to foot the bill. That sounds workable. At the very least, we could live with it; we wouldn't vote for it, but we could live with it.


That's an interesting idea. In fact, it's almost what the proposal does now, as you can see in clause 3. ("Alternately, and with the UNEA’s consent, a nation may choose to contribute a proportionally calculated sum of money, infrastructure and/or aid to other resettlement plans.") My only concern is this: What happens if there are too many refugees for the list of willing nations to cope with?


Sandy Martinez,
Ariddian Isles

Adding to existing committees is allowed; it was an addendum to the rule set. The rules should have a more detailed explanation.

This isn't actually about vengeance. And in no case would one nation be singled out to meet all the costs; they'd be spread over a large number of nations. It's merely a question of fairness. The principle of "polluter pays", in this instance, isn't designed to "punish" polluters, but rather to ensure that those who pollute very little are not faced with having to pay for the consequences of the actions of those who pollute a lot.Perhaps not vengeance, but there is a strong component of retribution included, especially considering the complexity of the problem and the difficulty in locating a smoking gun, pardon our pun. To assign percentages of responsibility for the "end of the world as we know it" due to climate change is a far different animal than identifying and rectifying sources of pollution. This also touches on our discomfort with assigning such adjudicatory duties to the UNEA, which has up to this point been a scientific and regulatory body.

The wording concerning the planning duties and registry of nations appears fine. I do have a question about the following wording due to permanent or indefinite climate changes,Is permanent not redundant there? How would permanency be determined? Or as is more likely, is the proposal addressed to "climate changes of indefinite duration", thus disqualifying refugees from the random and self-limiting, albeit devastating, hurricane and monsoon?

Ben Whitehorse
Special Ambassador Environmental Affairs
Rubina

We believe that a neighbor in need is to be helped. That is our central tenet for hospitality. If our neighbor loses its house and decides to accept our house as his new home, then we gladly adopt them as new family members. We would hope that others would offer us the same hospitality. It disturbs us greatly when we hear some nations speak ill of refugees coming onto their lands. Fate can hit us hard and in ways we may not enjoy, it is our duty to alleviate the misfortune of others because we ourselves could befall such disasters.

Emperor Ceasar is sad with some of the heartless comments he has heard. We support this proposal.

Adding to existing committees is allowed; it was an addendum to the rule set. The rules should have a more detailed explanation.

OOC: Thanks.

IC:
Perhaps not vengeance, but there is a strong component of retribution included, especially considering the complexity of the problem and the difficulty in locating a smoking gun, pardon our pun. To assign percentages of responsibility for the "end of the world as we know it" due to climate change is a far different animal than identifying and rectifying sources of pollution. This also touches on our discomfort with assigning such adjudicatory duties to the UNEA, which has up to this point been a scientific and regulatory body.

It could be left to the CRC, of course, but we're trying to limit the number of UN committees. As for striking out the "polluter pays" principle and replacing it by one that would assign unplacable refugees (in extreme and unlikely cases) to nations which have the infrastructure and other means to welcome them, irrespective of pollution levels, is something that we're considering.


The wording concerning the planning duties and registry of nations appears fine. I do have a question about the following wording

due to permanent or indefinite climate changes,

Is permanent not redundant there? How would permanency be determined? Or as is more likely, is the proposal addressed to "climate changes of indefinite duration", thus disqualifying refugees from the random and self-limiting, albeit devastating, hurricane and monsoon?


A devastating hurricane or monsoon which does not render it unfeasible for the affected population to be relocated in its own country would not lead to the CRC (or UNEA) being involved.

Permanency would be quite clear in situations where, for example, a nation of low-lying coral atolls disappears completely into the ocean.


We believe that a neighbor in need is to be helped. That is our central tenet for hospitality. If our neighbor loses its house and decides to accept our house as his new home, then we gladly adopt them as new family members. We would hope that others would offer us the same hospitality. It disturbs us greatly when we hear some nations speak ill of refugees coming onto their lands. Fate can hit us hard and in ways we may not enjoy, it is our duty to alleviate the misfortune of others because we ourselves could befall such disasters.

Emperor Ceasar is sad with some of the heartless comments he has heard. We support this proposal.

Thank you.


Sandy Martinez,
Ariddian Isles

Permanency would be quite clear in situations where, for example, a nation of low-lying coral atolls disappears completely into the ocean.After looking at it again, our concern is more with the use of "indeterminate" and the fact that it's not clear whether you are referring to indeterminate duration, conditions, range, or any number of other characteristics applied to such devastations.

--L.T.

After looking at it again, our concern is more with the use of "indeterminate" and the fact that it's not clear whether you are referring to indeterminate duration, conditions, range, or any number of other characteristics applied to such devastations.


I assume you mean "indefinite"?

"Indefinite" would apply to duration, in cases "including but not limited to recurrent natural disasters, flooding, and long-term recorded changes in temperature of 2°C or more". In other words, if the devastating change appears to be permanent, or will continue with no reversal in sight.


Sandy Martinez,
Ariddian Isles

Climate change is caused by Teletubbies. Yeah, they use so much power when their Tummies light up that they account for 66% of the world's fuel usage. But when it comes to err, climate refugees we prefer them to live on boats 'cause they seldom sink with land... Ugh! let go of my neck!

Chilephillipbeverleynatmordejepson M. J.
Some Top-ranking Climate Change adviser, he claims

I'm very sorry about C. M. J's gate-crashing. The Mind of Charlotte Ryberg really intends to express that climate change may not affect every single UN Member. The change of climate in Funen varies upon nation to nation. Our pattern of weather has remained similar since records began.

However, we would welcome a form of early action to help victims and potential victims of climate-related disasters in their region, in the present, the future and the far-future.

Lailafarrahhayfazahirahibaf E. H.
Charlotte Ryberg Climate Study Society

Sounds promising when planets change their climates and people are forced to find new lives. It happens in life and we'd be prepared to accept refugees when it happens, make them citizens and our population will grow, grow, grow.

But UN nations who accept refugees had ought to have some sort of financial rebate so we can supply them properly with the vital stuff, like education, roofs with four walls, jobs, health care and more.

UN Nations had ought to be rewarded for looking after refugees appropriately.

Mind you, a resolution supporting action to slow down or halt climate change could make a good companion to it.

Wait a minute... should nations be protecting their culture too?

Charlotte R. F.
The mind herself

Gah, yes, "indefinite". We would suggest a slight change in wording to indicate that duration is what is meant.

That's an interesting idea. In fact, it's almost what the proposal does now, as you can see in clause 3. ("Alternately, and with the UNEA’s consent, a nation may choose to contribute a proportionally calculated sum of money, infrastructure and/or aid to other resettlement plans.") My only concern is this: What happens if there are too many refugees for the list of willing nations to cope with?That's where you empower the UNEA to negotiate with other nations to take the excess refugees. You can't just ship people off to nations that don't want them; it poses a threat to individual nations' security, and increases the odds that the refugees themselves will be subject to persecution, harassment and abuse as "unwanted" people when they arrive. It must be the nations' decision to accept refugees, and even if that requires a little arm-twisting, then fine. At least the actual polluters are still paying for the refugees' transport and relocation.

~Cdr. Chiang

But UN nations who accept refugees had ought to have some sort of financial rebate so we can supply them properly with the vital stuff, like education, roofs with four walls, jobs, health care and more.

UN Nations had ought to be rewarded for looking after refugees appropriately.

That's the beauty of this proposal. You'll note (clause 3) that nations which opt not to receive refugees will provide funding to resettlement operations. So that nations which do take in refugees will face very little in terms of costs.

Gah, yes, "indefinite". We would suggest a slight change in wording to indicate that duration is what is meant.

"DEFINING a “climate refugee” as a person whose home has become uninhabitable due to permanent climate changes, or climate changes of indefinite duration, including but not limited to..."?

That's where you empower the UNEA to negotiate with other nations to take the excess refugees. You can't just ship people off to nations that don't want them; it poses a threat to individual nations' security, and increases the odds that the refugees themselves will be subject to persecution, harassment and abuse as "unwanted" people when they arrive. It must be the nations' decision to accept refugees, and even if that requires a little arm-twisting, then fine. At least the actual polluters are still paying for the refugees' transport and relocation.

~Cdr. Chiang

All right. That can be addressed simply by removing "and with the UNEA’s consent" from clause 3.


Sandy Martinez,
Ariddian Isles

"DEFINING a “climate refugee” as a person whose home has become uninhabitable due to permanent climate changes, or climate changes of indefinite duration, including but not limited to..."?Much better, thank you.

--L.T.

This is really, really close to something we could support. So close, in fact, that the one thing holding us back from support is something we wish we could just overlook. But, we can't.

The portion of clause 3 that would "require each nation to accept a number of climate refugees", even though it refers to very unlikely circumstances and would rarely, if ever, be applied, is something we simply cannot accept. No nation should ever be forced to take in people they do not wish to allow into their country. We see this as a matter of basic principle. Altanar has an open immigration policy, but we respect the right that nations have to not have such an open policy, even if we do consider that a backwards attitude. While removing the portion requiring UNEA consent before the alternate method of reparations (i.e. funding/aid/etc.) could be chosen by such a nation helps, we simply do not want to see the idea that a nation could be forced to take people in, even in unlikely circumstances, be formally legislated into existence in this manner.

If that one portion of the resolution was deleted, we'd wholeheartedly support this. We do think that nations who are causing pollution should be required to fund/aid/assist resettlement efforts, and have no problem whatsoever with that portion of the clause in question.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

Ambassador Askanabath,

First of all, thank you for your support. I understand your concern, which is similar to that expressed by the Kennyite delegation. That's the reason why we're removing "and with the UNEA’s consent" from clause 3.

That leaves us with:

3. At its discretion, require each nation to accept a number of climate refugees proportional to that nation’s adverse impact on the climate, as calculated by the UNEA. Alternately, a nation may choose to contribute a proportionally calculated sum of money, infrastructure and/or aid to other resettlement plans.

As you can see, under no circumstance will a nation be required to take in refugees if it refuses to do so.


http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/4845/tbdkd2.jpg
Sandy Martinez,
Ariddian Isles

I can't wait for the rebate for population growth. When you're ready, Ariddia, post it and we'll approve it within two days.

You're sure you won't want to call a vote first?

OOC: This won't be posted just yet. It'll be posted when I have time for an extensive TG campaign.

In the meantime, here's the latest version. Unless I've forgotten anything, it includes all changes:


THE UNITED NATIONS,

DEFINING a “climate refugee” as a person whose home has become uninhabitable due to permanent climate changes, or climate changes of indefinite duration, including but not limited to recurrent natural disasters, flooding, and long-term recorded changes in temperature of 2°C or more; or: as a person whose home is deemed likely, by the UN Environmental Agency (UNEA), to become uninhabitable within the next ten years;

URGING all member nations to do their utmost to lessen and prevent adverse human impacts on the climate;

RECOMMENDING that affected member nations call for aid from other nations, and allow national and international aid teams the maximum possible opportunities to distribute aid and access affected areas;

FURTHER URGING all member nations with significant areas of elevation or other means of refuge from lowland flooding to offer sanctuary to evacuees from vulnerable member nations;

HEREBY TASKS the UNEA with ensuring the resettlement of climate refugees who have been unable to secure resettlement by other means.

The UNEA shall:

1. Immediately begin collecting data measuring the impact on climate change of industrial and other human activities within each nation. Within three years the UNEA, using this data, shall establish what proportion of harmful impact is attributable to each nation. These figures are to be updated every three years.

2. Receive and rule on asylum applications from climate refugees who have been denied immigration to at least four countries.

3. At its discretion, require each nation to accept a number of climate refugees proportional to that nation’s adverse impact on the climate, as calculated by the UNEA. Alternately, a nation may choose to contribute a proportionally calculated sum of money, infrastructure and/or aid to other resettlement plans.

4. Develop standardised efficient procedures for large-scale population relocations, in coordination with appropriate national and international organisations.

5. Maintain a voluntary register of nations willing to accept refugees, specifying the number of persons said nation is willing to accept.

Environmental: All Business, I assume?

Environmental: All Business, I assume?

Yes.

1. Immediately begin collecting data measuring the impact on climate change of industrial and other human activities within each nation. Within three years the CRC, using this data, shall establish what proportion of harmful impact is attributable to each nation. These figures are to be updated every three years.

A minor nitpick, but human activities might be reworded. I'd normally suggest anthropogenic, but I think it is the same thing.

Is there a word we can use to include unicorns, talking bears, and beer drinking penguins?

Don't do that; that's just silly.

I'd rather not, really. Even "sentient" would be ambiguous, and "activities by beings possessing self-awareness" would indeed look clumsy and silly.


Sandy Martinez,
Ariddian Isles

you could try people?

you could try people?

OOC: "other people's activities"? Thanks for the suggestion, but I... don't really think so. Maybe "people's activities in general within each nation", but that sounds clumsy.

yeah it does sound clumsy, but maybe there are some laws that sound clumsy but still impart the essence of the meaning... just don't use it in a conversation...

there could be persons, individuals, i dunno... there's gotta be a simple solution staring at us in the face.... i cant find it...

Considering it's already been ruled that "Human Rights" proposals affect nonhuman sapients, I'd just go with "human".

Considering it's already been ruled that "Human Rights" proposals affect nonhuman sapients, I'd just go with "human".

Logical. :) I'm sold on it.