NationStates Jolt Archive

Oceanic Toxic 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: Charlotte Ryberg

Description:

The World Assembly,

NOTING that arguments of sovereignty over territorial water rights are irrelevant as ways to prevent toxic waste dumped in one region from contaminating waters of other countries are unavoidable.

NOTING FURTHER that dumped toxic waste has the capability to kill surrounding aquatic life at an unpredictable scale;

DEFINING toxic waste as waste material with substances that are harmful to life and the environment, such as those with poisonous, radioactive, flammable, explosive, corrosive, carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic or bioaccumulative characteristics.

REALISING that:
- Oceanic toxic waste dumping poses an unacceptable danger to living creatures, and;
- The prevention of toxic waste dumped in one region from contaminating waters of other countries cannot be solved just by magic;

Therefore,

PROHIBITS entirely all oceanic dumping of toxic waste in both territorial and international waters.

MANDATES that all business and governments of member states must cease and desist oceanic toxic waste dumping.

URGES member states to bring to justice those who continue to dump toxic waste on territorial or international waters.

Where would you propose other dump sites to be?

In landfills? Where the pollutant could seep into the water supply? How about in big storage warehouses, where a small amount of material could go missing and turn up in a "Dirty Bomb"

I dont think the WA should be inclined to legislate over the Waste disposal habits of countries.

Under this proposal, concrete blocks are toxic waste. For that matter, so is water.

I agree in some part that toxic dumping in international waters should be delt with swiftly, but what of the small nations such as Zanoduse.
Who really do not have the land or resources to build a state of the art toxic dump. For some countires their territorial waters is the only way to get rid of harmful contaminants.

The point Im making is that this although an admirable bill, only proposes to remove one bad waste dump and replace it with other bad waste dumps. This is not a solution or a problem solver.

Waste Disposal of any kind has to be something left to individual countries.

Under this proposal, concrete blocks are toxic waste. For that matter, so is water.
Indeed. I would ask that the delegation from Charlotte Ryberg expand a bit on the definition of toxic waste.

Where would you propose other dump sites to be?

In landfills? Where the pollutant could seep into the water supply? How about in big storage warehouses, where a small amount of material could go missing and turn up in a "Dirty Bomb"

I dont think the WA should be inclined to legislate over the Waste disposal habits of countries.

The location of toxic waste sites is up to the member state, that is anywhere but the sea. However, I am inclined to urge member states to dispose of such toxic waste in an appropriate manner and force industries to seek alternatives to materials that can produce toxic waste. Perhaps consider:

URGES member states to:
- Encourage the recycling of waste;
- Dispose toxic waste in an safe and appropriate manner and;
- Implement legislation to force industries into the reduction of the production of toxic waste.

...anywhere but the sea: nearly every forms of life that I know of need water: we need water too, and if all the waters of the world were polluted there would be no safe water for us.

Under this proposal, concrete blocks are toxic waste. For that matter, so is water.
Indeed. I would ask that the delegation from Charlotte Ryberg expand a bit on the definition of toxic waste.
I have adjusted the definition such that it defines toxic waste as:

Waste material with substances that are harmful to life and the environment, such as those with poisonous, radioactive, flammable, explosive, corrosive, carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic or bioaccumulative characteristics.

OOC: It seems the widely used term for toxic waste is difficult to define.

I agree in some part that toxic dumping in international waters should be delt with swiftly, but what of the small nations such as Zanoduse.
Who really do not have the land or resources to build a state of the art toxic dump. For some countires their territorial waters is the only way to get rid of harmful contaminants.

I understand that smaller nations will face difficulty in toxic waste disposal but it appears that among the best solutions would be to urge your country's industries to substitute materials that causes toxic waste with those that are environmentally friendly. Recycling would be good too.

The point Im making is that this although an admirable bill, only proposes to remove one bad waste dump and replace it with other bad waste dumps. This is not a solution or a problem solver.

Waste Disposal of any kind has to be something left to individual countries.

There is no perfect resolution that solves all of the world's environmental problems but it is the banning of oceanic waste dumping that will get us closer to the goal of a cleaner environment.

You seem to be confused about the mean of 'toxicity'. A radioactive substance is not necessarily toxic. The term you should use is not 'toxic', but 'hazardous'. You might consider doing, you know, at least some basic research (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=154) before trying to write your proposal.

We will, of course, be opposing this.

-- Dr Lois Merrywether
WA Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

Actually, even under the revised definition, water would still be defined as toxic waste. Water is a near-universal solvent, which will dissolve almost any substance if given enough time. Thus, it is corrosive.

All nit picking aside, I still believe that this will, if given the chance, cause much more harm than good. I can picture it now:

"Toxic Waste Spill Causes Cancer in Rural Well Users"

I honestly believe that if a country is advanced enough to be desalinating it's water, it can run it through some filters to keep it safe. The same cannot be said for the very poorest taking from the subterranean supplies. As for the environmental effects then Im afraid to say that people have to come before fish. Consideration to be given to wildlife certainly, but not to the detriment of people.

You might consider that for some nations the concept of territorial versus interational waters is far more complicated than it at first appears.

Our former territorial waters, for instance, were made the territorial waters of the principality of Zanjan, a constituent state in the empire which is not a member of the w.a.

Other states may share waters with numerous other states, some members of the w.a. and others not. Who "dumps" hazardous waste in these waters and under what regulations is a complicated and subtle matter.


Yours,

The location of toxic waste sites is up to the member state, that is anywhere but the sea. However, I am inclined to urge member states to dispose of such toxic waste in an appropriate manner and force industries to seek alternatives to materials that can produce toxic waste. Perhaps consider:

URGES member states to:
- Encourage the recycling of waste;
- Dispose toxic waste in an safe and appropriate manner and;
- Implement legislation to force industries into the reduction of the production of toxic waste.

...anywhere but the sea: nearly every forms of life that I know of need water: we need water too, and if all the waters of the world were polluted there would be no safe water for us.



I have adjusted the definition such that it defines toxic waste as:

Waste material with substances that are harmful to life and the environment, such as those with poisonous, radioactive, flammable, explosive, corrosive, carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic or bioaccumulative characteristics.

OOC: It seems the widely used term for toxic waste is difficult to define.



I understand that smaller nations will face difficulty in toxic waste disposal but it appears that among the best solutions would be to urge your country's industries to substitute materials that causes toxic waste with those that are environmentally friendly. Recycling would be good too.



There is no perfect resolution that solves all of the world's environmental problems but it is the banning of oceanic waste dumping that will get us closer to the goal of a cleaner environment.

Yeah, I think now after reading this I am developing that feeling that the majority of you guys have after seeing my Vets Act. Instead of asking each nation to dispose of their own, why cant something like this be added:

"Encourages nations to assist one another in the disposing of hazardous materials by allowing access to waste disposal facilities and other means not availible to some nations" That way it gives some help to those nations not able to properly dispose of said matierals due to financial matters or other circumstances

Might we suggest to the delegation of Charlotte Ryberg that if they worked on a single resolution at a time, the urge to repeal their past legislation and replace it with something similarly rushed might well be considerably reduced?

Im not grossly opposed to this draft of it. I think if it maybe offered some incentives to nations (tax breaks,etc); something resembling of a watchdog or oversight committee for complaints; non-compliance; corporations caught dumping illegally, and more comprehensive ban on where to dump.

Even if dumped on the ground, if not properly stored or disposed of, it still winds up in the air and water. Which makes left over waste materials of any kind a sticky subject and matter to enforce.