View Full Version: Replacement: Environmental Council (Draft)

Sovereigntist Saloon > Proposal Drafts and Other Dirty Schemes > Replacement: Environmental Council (Draft)


Title: Replacement: Environmental Council (Draft)


Cool Egg Sandwich - March 13, 2011 10:27 PM (GMT)
Brand new draft, thanks to Mousey for his vast input. Thanks to everyone for their opinions as well.

Edited : March 20th

QUOTE
Environmental Information Act
Category: Education and Creativity / Educational

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDS that further prosperity of member nations is reliant on maintenance of our natural world,

HIGHLIGHTS the benefits of environmental protection as documented in research, which indicates a correlation between environmental quality and good public health outcomes,

ACKNOWLEDGES the importance of accurate and readily available environmental research in order to make the best decisions on matters of national policy,

ESTABLISHES the Environmental Research Organization (ERO) as a branch of WASP, whose roles include:
-Examining and researching the environment in international territories and international waters, as well as in all member nations,
-Disseminating information gathered from the aforementioned research through a branch of the Universal Library Coalition,
-Conducting additional research at the request of member nations and offering corresponding suggestions and policy directives along with research findings,

ENCOURAGES member nations to improve the quality of the environment within their jurisdiction and to utilize the ERO to better accomplish that aim,

AFFIRMS the right of member nations to direct their own environmental policy.

Co-authored by: Mousebumples



Thoughts on the updated version?

Mousebumples - March 13, 2011 11:49 PM (GMT)
I'll think on this and get back to you, but on first glance, this looks a WHOLE LOT like the current resolution.

There are differences, absolutely. But there's still the establishment of a committee who has no power of WA member nations. That's not inherently BAD, per se, but it's not all that different from what we already have. That'll be harped on by the IntFed group, I'm sure.

:unsure:

Cool Egg Sandwich - March 13, 2011 11:52 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Mousebumples @ Mar 13 2011, 05:49 PM)
I'll think on this and get back to you, but on first glance, this looks a WHOLE LOT like the current resolution.

There are differences, absolutely. But there's still the establishment of a committee who has no power of WA member nations. That's not inherently BAD, per se, but it's not all that different from what we already have. That'll be harped on by the IntFed group, I'm sure.

:unsure:

Yeah, this is obviously a very rough compilation of ideas, and is definitely very similar to the current resolution on the books. I just wanted to stick with the method of : establish something moderately pleasing, then block.

It certainly needs more to set it apart from the WAEC, but I must admit there isn't really a need to change much. I just posted this "skeleton" so you guys/gals could comment.

Mousebumples - March 14, 2011 12:06 AM (GMT)
Here's a quick suggestion: What needs to be improved upon from the WAEC?

How does your proposal do that?

It's possible that we could task the IED with disseminating information and being available to conduct relevant informational environmental studies (at national request) and stick this in Education & Creativity: Education ... ?

Cool Egg Sandwich - March 14, 2011 12:34 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Mousebumples @ Mar 13 2011, 06:06 PM)
Here's a quick suggestion: What needs to be improved upon from the WAEC?

How does your proposal do that?

It's possible that we could task the IED with disseminating information and being available to conduct relevant informational environmental studies (at national request) and stick this in Education & Creativity: Education ... ?

That's actually a really fantastic idea, Mousey. We could have the basic draft create the IED as an 'educational' committee, and task them with performing environmental studies/research at the behest of member nations. Furthermore, as you said, we would task them with distributing published studies/research to member nations; likely those would be their primary functions.

We could call it something like, "Environmental Education Act." Thoughts?

I also made some Edits, reflected in the OP.

Mousebumples - March 14, 2011 02:36 PM (GMT)
General comment to start with: You may not want to announce the "Education" aspect so loudly (i.e. in the title, etc.) so that people who gloss over the Category and Strength portion won't necessarily notice that this ISN'T an environmental resolution.

Maybe "Environmental Information Act" ? Something along those lines?

Also, you may want to "accidentally" omit the category and strength when posting the proposal on the forums. If someone asks, don't lie about it - but if Bob Flibble doesn't ask for it, most people may just assume it's "Environmental, All Businesses."

QUOTE (Cool Egg Sandwich @ Mar 13 2011, 10:27 PM)
RECOGNIZES the benefits of environmental protection,

Not terrible, but perhaps something more specific would be useful? i.e. clean air improves breathing, clean water improves the quality of food from that water, etc. Of course, that could get too specific, though.

QUOTE (Cool Egg Sandwich @ Mar 13 2011, 10:27 PM)
ACKNOWLEDGES the importance of accurate and readily available environmental research,

And that some nations may be unable to fund an environmental researcher on their own?

QUOTE (Cool Egg Sandwich @ Mar 13 2011, 10:27 PM)
ESTABLISHES the International Environmental Education Directive, hereafter IEED, whose roles include:

"Environmental Research Organization" ?

QUOTE (Cool Egg Sandwich @ Mar 13 2011, 10:27 PM)
- Conducting relevant informational environmental research on national request,

I would probably move this one to LAST in the list. Starting off with what it can do under it's own power seems like it may be a better approach to me. Actually, it looks to me like all of these bullet points could stand to be re-organized in a more logically flowing way.

QUOTE (Cool Egg Sandwich @ Mar 13 2011, 10:27 PM)
AFFIRMS the right of member nations to direct their own environmental policy; however,

YAY, BLOCKER CLAUSE!

QUOTE (Cool Egg Sandwich @ Mar 13 2011, 10:27 PM)
STRONGLY URGES member nations to comply with the suggestions, scientific reports, and/or policy directives put forth by the IEED.

I'd suggest something along the lines of "ENCOURAGES each member nation to work to improve their own nation's environment and to use the ERO to best accomplish that aim."

A "rewrite" will be coming in the following post. :)

Mousebumples - March 14, 2011 02:56 PM (GMT)
Environmental Information Act
Category: Education and Creativity
Area of Effect: Educational

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDS that further prosperity of member nations is reliant on maintenance of our natural world,

RECOGNIZES the benefits associated with environmental protection as research has tied improved health outcomes with the quality of an individual's environmental surroundings, (this still sounds a bit awkward to my ears, but .... something like this?)

ACKNOWLEDGES the importance of accurate and readily available environmental research and that some member nations may not be able to fund such research on their own,

ESTABLISHES the Environmental Research Organization (ERO) whose roles include:
- Examining and researching the environment in international territories and international waters, as well as in member nations who have given explicit permission,
- Disseminating information gathered from environmental research to member nations through a branch of the Universal Library Coalition,
- Conducting environmental research per member nation request and offering corresponding suggestions and policy directives after the research is completed.

AFFIRMS the right of member nations to direct their own environmental policy;

ENCOURAGES each member nation to improve their own nation's environment and to utilize the ERO to better accomplish that aim.

Cool Egg Sandwich - March 14, 2011 03:41 PM (GMT)
I like your ideas. Plus, my organizational name was absolute ASS, thanks for coming up with something better. I'll post something, after I have a chance to work on the draft again...

Cool Egg Sandwich - March 15, 2011 02:37 AM (GMT)
Made some edits to the draft. Mousey, I liked some of your concepts, combinations, and edits; I hope you don't mind if I utilize some of them. Anyway, here is the updated draft:

QUOTE
Environmental Information Act
Category: Education and Creativity / Educational

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDS that further prosperity of member nations is reliant on maintenance of our natural world,

RECOGNIZES the benefits of environmental protection as research has suggested a correlation between the quality of environmental surroundings and public health outcomes,

ACKNOWLEDGES the importance of accurate and readily available environmental research and that some member nations may not be able to fund such research on their own,

ESTABLISHES the Environmental Research Organization as a branch of WASP, hereafter ERO, whose roles include:
-Examining and researching the environment in international territories and international waters, as well as in all member nations,
-Disseminating information gathered from environmental research through a branch of the  Universal Library Coalition,
-Conducting environmental research at the request of member nations and offering  corresponding suggestions and policy directives once the research is completed,

AFFIRMS the right of member nations to direct their own environmental policy;

ENCOURAGES member nations to improve the quality of the environment within their jurisdiction and to utilize the ERO to better accomplish that aim.


Since we've basically been working together on this whole "Environmental" project, I figured you would like co-author on both drafts. Does that gel with you?

Mousebumples - March 15, 2011 03:32 AM (GMT)
Sounds good. I'll probably have a few finicky wording suggestions in the next few days, but nothing too major at this time. Too tired to think super-coherently at the moment.

Also/And, co-author sounds fabulous and awesome. :D

Cool Egg Sandwich - March 15, 2011 03:42 AM (GMT)
I guess some good questions now are: Should we proceed with the repeal submission? Also, should we put this draft up on GA Forums yet? And finally, should we just wait it all out for awhile?

Also, I feel this draft needs more to set it apart from the current WA Environmental Council; any suggestions? What would you guys/gals like?

Imperial Yamea - March 17, 2011 12:49 PM (GMT)
I would suggest that you mandate for this organization to conduct environmental research in all WA member nations and then to report back to the WA... which the previous legislation sort of did, but we would suggest that it becomes a total power, that no nation can refuse. However still keep the right of each nation to choose individually for themselves.

Bears Armed - March 17, 2011 05:41 PM (GMT)
Hr'rmm.
Why isn't this organisation a branch of WASP?

Cool Egg Sandwich - March 17, 2011 07:14 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Imperial Yamea @ Mar 17 2011, 06:49 AM)
I would suggest that you mandate for this organization to conduct environmental research in all WA member nations and then to report back to the WA... which the previous legislation sort of did, but we would suggest that it becomes a total power, that no nation can refuse. However still keep the right of each nation to choose individually for themselves.

What are everyone's thoughts on this? Would you be comfortable with the ERO having the authority to conduct research in every WA member nation and report results to WA?

Personally, I would be fine with it, provided member nations can still "direct their own environmental policy". Plus, a clause like this being MANDATED would make all the lemmings happy who want "stronger" environmental legislation.

Saludos,

Mousebumples - March 17, 2011 08:24 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Cool Egg Sandwich @ Mar 17 2011, 07:14 PM)
What are everyone's thoughts on this? Would you be comfortable with the ERO having the authority to conduct research in every WA member nation and report results to WA?

Personally, I would be fine with it, provided member nations can still "direct their own environmental policy". Plus, a clause like this being MANDATED would make all the lemmings happy who want "stronger" environmental legislation.

I could support - it depends on the wording of the clause(s) in question.

Cool Egg Sandwich - March 18, 2011 06:50 PM (GMT)
Something along the lines of not being able to deny the ERO from doing environmental research in your nation; however, it would certainly still preserve the right of member nations to direct their own environmental policy, and completely ignore the research if they would like.

It's basically a 'carrot' that might gather some support from individuals who would prefer a stronger WA environmental authority.

Thoughts?

Mousebumples - March 19, 2011 03:28 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Cool Egg Sandwich @ Mar 18 2011, 06:50 PM)
Something along the lines of not being able to deny the ERO from doing environmental research in your nation; however, it would certainly still preserve the right of member nations to direct their own environmental policy, and completely ignore the research if they would like.

It's basically a 'carrot' that might gather some support from individuals who would prefer a stronger WA environmental authority.

Thoughts?

If you wanted to get that point across, I would try to avoid being explicit that nations do not need to follow ERO recommendations. Perhaps changing the following may work?

CURRENT: -Examining and researching the environment in territories and international waters, as well as in member nations who have given explicit permission,

SUGGESTED EDIT: -Examining and researching the environment in territories and international waters, as well as in all WA member nations,

It gets rid of the need for permission, and since the blocking clause is still in the proposal, everything else you mentioned appears to be covered.

Imperial Yamea - March 19, 2011 04:38 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Mousebumples @ Mar 18 2011, 09:28 PM)
QUOTE (Cool Egg Sandwich @ Mar 18 2011, 06:50 PM)
Something along the lines of not being able to deny the ERO from doing environmental research in your nation; however, it would certainly still preserve the right of member nations to direct their own environmental policy, and completely ignore the research if they would like.

It's basically a 'carrot' that might gather some support from individuals who would prefer a stronger WA environmental authority.

Thoughts?

If you wanted to get that point across, I would try to avoid being explicit that nations do not need to follow ERO recommendations. Perhaps changing the following may work?

CURRENT: -Examining and researching the environment in territories and international waters, as well as in member nations who have given explicit permission,

SUGGESTED EDIT: -Examining and researching the environment in territories and international waters, as well as in all WA member nations,

It gets rid of the need for permission, and since the blocking clause is still in the proposal, everything else you mentioned appears to be covered.

Yeah, that sounds like a good way of fraising it.

Cool Egg Sandwich - March 19, 2011 07:56 PM (GMT)
Edited to reflect the ERO's authority in conducting research.

Mousebumples - March 20, 2011 12:20 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Cool Egg Sandwich @ Mar 19 2011, 02:56 PM)
Edited to reflect the ERO's authority in conducting research.

I'm confused. Where's the current draft?

The OP is out of date, since it still refers to the IEEP or whatever. And I'm too confused/drained from work to try to figure it out.

Help?

Cool Egg Sandwich - March 20, 2011 12:31 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Mousebumples @ Mar 19 2011, 06:20 PM)
QUOTE (Cool Egg Sandwich @ Mar 19 2011, 02:56 PM)
Edited to reflect the ERO's authority in conducting research.

I'm confused. Where's the current draft?

The OP is out of date, since it still refers to the IEEP or whatever. And I'm too confused/drained from work to try to figure it out.

Help?

Sorry, it's toward the bottom of the first page.

I was too lazy to change the OP, and I had to run out to eat dinner with my mother [you're never too old...].

Mousebumples - March 20, 2011 03:05 AM (GMT)
Now picking it apart ...
QUOTE (Cool Egg Sandwich @ Mar 14 2011, 09:37 PM)
UNDERSTANDS that further prosperity of member nations is reliant on maintenance of our natural world,

"further prosperity" --> "continued prosperity" ?

QUOTE (Cool Egg Sandwich @ Mar 14 2011, 09:37 PM)
RECOGNIZES the benefits of environmental protection as research has suggested a correlation between the quality of environmental surroundings and public health outcomes,

Perhaps change to: HIGHLIGHTS the benefits of environmental protection as documented in research, which indicates a correlation between environmental quality and good public health outcomes.

QUOTE (Cool Egg Sandwich @ Mar 14 2011, 09:37 PM)
ACKNOWLEDGES the importance of accurate and readily available environmental research and that some member nations may not be able to fund such research on their own,

ACKNOWLEDGES the importance of accurate and readily available environmental research in order to make the best decisions on matters of national policy,

RECOGNIZES that some member nations may not be able to fund such research on their own,


QUOTE (Cool Egg Sandwich @ Mar 14 2011, 09:37 PM)
ESTABLISHES the Environmental Research Organization as a branch of WASP, hereafter ERO, whose roles include:

As currently written, it looks like you're renaming "WASP" as "ERO" ... I'd either move the clause or adopt my favored (ERO) method.

QUOTE (Cool Egg Sandwich @ Mar 14 2011, 09:37 PM)
-Disseminating information gathered from environmental research through a branch of the  Universal Library Coalition,

First: extra SPACE before the ULC mention.

Second: do we need to keep saying "environmental research" ? Perhaps reiterate by saying "aforementioned research" ?

QUOTE (Cool Egg Sandwich @ Mar 14 2011, 09:37 PM)
-Conducting environmental research at the request of member nations and offering  corresponding suggestions and policy directives once the research is completed,

Again: extra SPACE, this time before "corresponding"

Also: "offering corresponding suggestions and policy directives along with research findings" ?

QUOTE (Cool Egg Sandwich @ Mar 14 2011, 09:37 PM)
AFFIRMS the right of member nations to direct their own environmental policy;

ENCOURAGES member nations to improve the quality of the environment within their jurisdiction and to utilize the ERO to better accomplish that aim.

I'd figure that swapping the order of these clauses would be more effective. Start with the DO THIS, PLS. clause and then follow with BUT YOU REALLY DON'T HAVE TO IF YOU DON'T WANT TO.

:)

Cool Egg Sandwich - March 20, 2011 04:48 AM (GMT)
Alright, I'm going to make some changes. It's kinda funny though, a lot of those changes are alterations of your previous changes, lol. I agree with you on most of them, and I'll probably implement most, if not all of them.

I really had trouble with the spacing on Word when I was making those bullet points, so that's why there are extra spaces and shit like that. I'll fix that, as well.

Thanks for the extra input, Mousey.

Mousebumples - March 20, 2011 04:52 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Cool Egg Sandwich @ Mar 19 2011, 11:48 PM)
Alright, I'm going to make some changes. It's kinda funny though, a lot of those changes are alterations of your previous changes, lol. I agree with you on most of them, and I'll probably implement most, if not all of them.

I really had trouble with the spacing on Word when I was making those bullet points, so that's why there are extra spaces and shit like that. I'll fix that, as well.

Thanks for the extra input, Mousey.

Clearly you're not used to my "style" of drafting proposals. One some of my resolutions (notably IDE) I would sometimes update my draft with wording changes that no one had suggested but that I decided were necessary on my own.

Generally, each change is an "improvement," but that doesn't ever stop me from constantly adjusting my own wording - even if done ever so slightly. :P

Cool Egg Sandwich - March 20, 2011 05:04 AM (GMT)
Oh, I totally understand and I would expect that. I do the same thing, but clearly to a lesser degree. I suppose I am just easier to please, I can find the wording I like pretty quickly; this is why it's good to draft with multiple voices and opinions.

Thanks again, I'm about to post a new version in the OP this time, lulz...

Edit: How would you guys/gals feel about the ERO being able to direct environmental policy in international territories/waters?

I think that this could be a boon to the passing of this legislation; if we were to propose the argument that the environmentally friendly international territories would be a shining example to the rest of the NS world, encouraging other member nations to adapt their own environmental policies...

Thoughts???

Edit 2: In addition, is there some sort of 'incentive' we should offer member nations that comply with ERO policy directives? I would think this would be an additional "carrot" that might get nations with a more IntFed lean to vote for this legislation.

Thoughts???

Cool Egg Sandwich - March 20, 2011 06:53 AM (GMT)
I also think a clause requiring member nations to cooperate with ERO research in their nation, and not to impede upon the ERO's ability to conduct said research would be useful in garnering support of the lemmings, as well...

Thoughts?

Eternal Yerushalayim - March 20, 2011 12:46 PM (GMT)
Seems okay. But I hope that isn't used to force nations to fund such "research". After all, we know what the WA means by "co-operation".

Mousebumples - March 20, 2011 01:41 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Cool Egg Sandwich @ Mar 20 2011, 12:04 AM)
Edit: How would you guys/gals feel about the ERO being able to direct environmental policy in international territories/waters?

A few problems ...

One: Non-WA nations wouldn't be required to support whatever environmental policy the ERO endorsed.

Two: Giving them power over Environmental Regulations makes it seem like this (potentially) moves into a category violation since it's not just about Education. We need to write to the category and not try to just add in "whatever" to make it more fluffy-friendly.

QUOTE (Cool Egg Sandwich @ Mar 20 2011, 12:04 AM)
Edit 2: In addition, is there some sort of 'incentive' we should offer member nations that comply with ERO policy directives? I would think this would be an additional "carrot" that might get nations with a more IntFed lean to vote for this legislation.

What kind of incentive could be offered? I'd think "having a great environment" would be the best incentive available, and that's already inherently included.

I'm not opposed to something else, but ... I don't quite know what you have in mind.

Bears Armed - March 20, 2011 02:40 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Cool Egg Sandwich @ Mar 18 2011, 12:50 PM)
Something along the lines of not being able to deny the ERO from doing environmental research in your nation; however, it would certainly still preserve the right of member nations to direct their own environmental policy, and completely ignore the research if they would like.

It's basically a 'carrot' that might gather some support from individuals who would prefer a stronger WA environmental authority.

Thoughts?

For situations where nations' environmental policy would affect their neighbours too, the Bears would prefer a stronger resolution than this.


Incidentally, you do realise that you'd have to repeal both #42 and #66 before this could be passed, hrright? Maybe it would be better to leave #42 (and thus WAEC) in place, and just concentrate on repeal+replace for #66?

Cool Egg Sandwich - March 20, 2011 06:52 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Bears Armed @ Mar 20 2011, 08:40 AM)
QUOTE (Cool Egg Sandwich @ Mar 18 2011, 12:50 PM)
Something along the lines of not being able to deny the ERO from doing environmental research in your nation; however, it would certainly still preserve the right of member nations to direct their own environmental policy, and completely ignore the research if they would like.

It's basically a 'carrot' that might gather some support from individuals who would prefer a stronger WA environmental authority.

Thoughts?

For situations where nations' environmental policy would affect their neighbours too, the Bears would prefer a stronger resolution than this.


Incidentally, you do realise that you'd have to repeal both #42 and #66 before this could be passed, hrright? Maybe it would be better to leave #42 (and thus WAEC) in place, and just concentrate on repeal+replace for #66?

I'm not sure I really see how this replacement contradicts / duplicates GAR #66.

Would it be the clause that stipulates that the WAESC can "reduce pollution" in areas with endangered species, or whatever?

Cool Egg Sandwich - March 23, 2011 04:33 AM (GMT)
I really think we should make cooperation with the ERO mandatory. Since nations don't have to follow the policy directives in the first place, we might as well make the concession of mandated assistance for ERO research, as it were.

Something like this maybe?

QUOTE
REQUIRES member nations to assist ERO research within their nations to the best of their abilities,


I think this clause, while not "fun times" by any stretch of the imagination, would accomplish two things:

1) Add something to the draft that would please the group of people who would advocate for a "strong" central environmental agency.

2) It would also establish something within this replacement to actually set it apart from the WAEC in actual substance.


Plus the whole "best of your abilities" is a beautifully murky legal concept.

Thoughts on adding a clause like this ?

Cool Egg Sandwich - April 1, 2011 06:17 PM (GMT)
This has been posted in the GA Forums.

I would really appreciate involvement from NSO members in the debate.

Thanks very much...

Cool Egg Sandwich - April 30, 2011 10:14 PM (GMT)
The WA Environmental Council REPEAL has been submitted again !!!!!

All delegates head on over and approve.

In addition, the replacement draft has been amended, and the ERO mandate clause has been stricken at Knootoss's request.

Check it out. All material is in the GA Forums...


Rgds.,

Scandavian States - May 2, 2011 01:19 AM (GMT)
This is a legal blocker, yes? If so, I guess I can support it. I mean, I wouldn't have even objected to the mandatory ERO clause, since "to the best of my ability" would've basically meant the Imperial Parks Service Rangers showing these guys to where they needed to be, protecting them from predators, and keeping them from stumbling onto military/security service installations (and being shot on sight).

kenny - May 22, 2011 07:45 PM (GMT)
In case the author happens to stop by this site soon, the replacement should be polished up and submitted sooner rather than later, as competing proposals are already starting to crop up.

Cool Egg Sandwich - May 23, 2011 10:27 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (kenny @ May 22 2011, 01:45 PM)
In case the author happens to stop by this site soon, the replacement should be polished up and submitted sooner rather than later, as competing proposals are already starting to crop up.

I am working on some stuff right now - hopefully with the help of Mousey. The draft, as you mentioned, is currently being polished up a bit and made ready for submission. I would like to get this bad boy in [with improvements] as soon as possible...


Rgds.,




* Hosted for free by InvisionFree