Ocean Protection


  • group:cid:2:privileges:mods:members

    I firmly believe that this bill was a missed opportunity and reintroduce it to the floor for debate and progression with hope we can pass this second time around. Councillor Orcello has not been seen around these chambers for a while so I have taken up the mantel in her absence.

    Ocean Protection Act

    Article I: Purpose and Definitions

    Section I

    This Act aims to preserve the world's oceans as viable ecosystems by reducing the amount of pollution caused by human action in the European Union.

    Section II

    For the purposes of this Act, we define the used terms as follows:

    **(i) ocean: a large body of saline water not enclosed by land;

    (ii) waste: byproduct of industry or daily life that pollutes oceanic environment(s);**

    (iii) landfill site: a legally designated place for the purposes of storing waste;

    (iv) sewage: water contaminated due to human processes;

    (v) toxic waste: waste material that can cause death, injury or birth defects to living creatures.

    Section III

    Nothing in this Act shall prevent member nations from adopting more strict national legislation regarding environmental protection. Member nations are encouraged to take further action to protect the oceans from pollution.

    Article II: Regulations

    Section I

    Member nations of the European Union are hereby required to refrain from intentionally dumping waste into ocean(s).

    (i) Appropriate measures shall be taken to minimize the harmful seepage from legitimate landfill sites into ocean(s).

    (ii) This Act specifically forbids the dumping of radioactive or toxic waste into ocean(s).

    Section II

    Industrial sewage must go through a purification process before it is released into ocean(s).

    Section III

    Member nations shall take appropriate measures to minimize the oil spill from maritime vessels into ocean(s).

    (i) The use of single-hulled oil tankers is hereby banned by European Union member states and within their recognized national waters by the end of year 2015.

    Section IV

    This Act shall designate certain areas as ?sensitive oceanic ecosystems? (SOE). Member nations are strongly discouraged from conducting operations that have distinct or severe harmful environmental effects on these ecosystems. SOE include:

    (i) coral reefs;

    (ii) active cetacean mating territories;

    (iii) areas that contain a particularly diverse, rare, or endangered maritime flora and fauna.

    Article III: Enforcement

    Section I

    All member nations of the European Union are required to harmonize their national law(s) with this Act in 6 months of time from its approval by the European Council.

    Section II

    Breaching the articles of this Act must be considered a punishable offense in member nations.

    Section III

    Violations of this Act may be tried in the European Court of Justice.

    Authored By: Nadira Orcello
    Presented By/Reintroduction Sponsor: Kairos Jelesniak

    End of Debate: Friday May 2nd, GMT 01:21
    End of Amending: Sunday May 4th, GMT 01:21
    End of Voting: Wednesday May 7th, GMT 01:21


  • Commission

    The government of Davishire almost wholly supports this act. It would be a great principle that this region works together to protect a key environment. Davishire however would like to see the amendment of this part of the bill as I feel that the deadline is too soon. I therefore propose that the deadline be moved to the year 2019

    QUOTE

    **[Section III

    Member nations shall take appropriate measures to minimize the oil spill from maritime vessels into ocean(s).

    (i) The use of single-hulled oil tankers is hereby banned by European Union member states and within their recognized national waters by the end of year 2019**



  • The Federal Republic of Northern Caesarea fully supports this proposal.

    Gabriela Espinosa
    European Council Delegate


  • Mass Effect RP

    I am glad this bill has once again been brought before the council. I would reiterate my stance from the last time we debated this legislation, namely that we should support it. Perhaps the European Union will finally begin to show its support and fight for the environment However, I would raise an issue with the bill in its current form. As was said during the last debate, the six month implementation time may be too strict for many member states. Halsberg has already implemented most, if not all, of the articles of this act through its own domestic regulations, but I can't speak for everyone. During the last debate, my Inimican friend pointed out, rather verbosely, that his country still employs the use of single-hulled oil tankers, for example. I do know that the time-frame for this particular element of the bill is more relaxed, but perhaps this is an indication that Inimicus, and most likely other member states, would need to work hard to implement other parts of the legislation in the six months allocated. I would propose an amendment to Article III, Section I:

    QUOTE

    Section I

    All member nations of the European Union are required to harmonize their national law(s) with this Act in 12 months of time from its approval by the European Council.

    This more relaxed time-frame would allow for member states to implement any changes in a proper fashion. Of course, if representatives from nations who agree that six months is too short would wish to propose a different time scale, I would be happy to support them.

    I would also like to voice my support for Councillor Heaven's proposed amendment, and would call on my colleagues to support such an amended version of this bill when we come to our final vote. Let's hope this is the first of many bills which are able to garner widespread support and help the planet in an effective way.

    Cllr. John Walters


  • group:cid:2:privileges:mods:members

    Its great to see council approach this bill with such enthusiasm and recognise that this is a crucial piece of environmental legislation. If the time frame of implementation is the problem then it makes sense to give a more generous time frame to ensure it passes.

    We can support the 12 months for implementation. We would however like to see if nations would be willing to move on the deadline for replacement of single-hulled tankers. These tankers are incredibly unsafe and who know how many oil spills may happen within the 5 years offered by my good friend Councillor Heaven. I would like to propose this instead:

    QUOTE

    Section III

    Member nations shall take appropriate measures to minimize the oil spill from maritime vessels into ocean(s).

    (i) The use of single-hulled oil tankers is hereby banned by European Union member states and within their recognized national waters by the end of year 2017



  • The Duxburian Union has softened its stance since the last debate on this bill. The prior amendments, plus the new ones presented for 12 months enactment and 2019 for tankers make it viable. We just have a simple housekeeping amendment to add:

    QUOTE

    Section I

    Member nations of the European Union are hereby required to refrain from intentionally dumping waste into ocean(s).

    (i) Appropriate measures shall be taken to minimize the harmful seepage from legitimate landfill sites into ocean(s).

    (ii) This Act specifically forbids the dumping of radioactive or toxic waste into ocean(s).

    Section I

    Member nations of the European Union shall not dump radioactive or toxic waste into ocean(s).

    (i) Appropriate measures shall be taken to minimize the harmful seepage from legitimate landfill sites into ocean(s).


  • group:cid:2:privileges:mods:members

    I'm not sure if that's too specific and could miss out over forms of waste.


  • Mass Effect RP

    The wording of Article II, Section I seems to imply that the focus of the bill is on radioactive and toxic waste, at least to me anyway. If this is indeed the case, then part two of Section I seems to be rather unnecessary and the Speaker's amendment merely cleans that part of the bill up a bit by combining the two statements together. If the bill was intended to focus on all waste in general, such tidying up would not be necessary. However, this was not specified at any point in the bill, with Article I only detailing toxic waste and sewage.

    I would also like to raise issue with Article II, Section IV. I completely support the designation of certain portions of the ocean as protected areas, but I am confused as to the wording of the section. " Member nations are strongly discouraged...". You would hope that designating somewhere as protected would actually give it some protection. As much as we would all like to live in a world where member states always take the advice of the Union, the fact is we don't. There is absolutely nothing to stop member states from drilling for oil in a "sensitive oceanic ecosystem". If we're going to go down the route of designating areas of the ocean as especially significant, then we should do it properly rather than leaving it to a small section which consists of no more than a point of principle.



  • Nouvelle Picardie supports this legislation that would further the protection of our planet's oceans from potentially harmful human activities. We also support the amendment to allow 12 months to implement this legislation. To map the sensitive oceanic ecosystems adjacent to my home country will take time and, since some areas might only be classified as a SOE in certain seasons, having a full year will allow us to better comply with the proposed legislation.

    Cuxi Anyas



  • OOC: CAN SOMEBODY WITH ADMIN POWERS PLEASE FIX THE THREAD TITLE OMG OCD OVERDRIVE

    There are four amendments for us to vote on:

    1. Councillor Heaven's amendment to move the single-hulled tanker ban from 2015 to 2019.

    2. Councillor Walters' amendment to extend the bill's implementation period to 12 months.

    3. Councillor Jelesniak's amendment to move the single-hulled tanker ban from 2015 to 2017.

    4. My amendment to clarify/consolidate the scope of the bill (radioactive and toxic waste).


  • group:cid:2:privileges:mods:members

    I vote FOR my amendment and Councillor Walters'

    I vote AGAINST Councillor Heaven and the speaker's amendments


  • Mass Effect RP

    I, John Walters, vote FOR my amendment, Councillor Heaven's and the Speakers.

    I vote AGAINST Councillor Jelesniak's amendment.


  • ECoJ

    "I am sorry not to have contributed to the debate so far, you all must have missed my skepticism. I can remember the times the former version of this Act was defeated, and my boss, Nicholas Benfield, was elated about it. I, however, am not him. I am not a fan of climate legislation, but I would not like to dismiss this Act as pure rubbish at first sight. After reading it carefully, I have come to the conclusion that there are certain prudent features of this Act. Inimicus, too, attempts to gather as much wealth as possible from its fishing industry, and clean oceans are vital for this.
    Benfield stated that Inimicus still uses single-hulled oil tankers on a large scale. This is not entirely false. Much of our oil trade is done by such tankers, and we would need a lot of time to convert fully to double-hulled tankers. Radioactive waste (which, let's admit it, is produced in rather large quantities in Inimicus) also needs a safe place to be stored.
    All in all, I am not completely in favour of this Act, but the good bits should not be thrown away.

    Also, I hereby cast my votes for the amendments:
    I vote FOR councillor Heaven's amendment;
    I vote FOR councillor Walters's amendment;
    I vote AGAINST councillor Jelesniak's amendment;
    I vote FOR the Speaker's amendment;"

    Ralph Jaevons


  • Commission

    1. Councillor Heaven's amendment to move the single-hulled tanker ban from 2015 to 2019.

    2. Councillor Walters' amendment to extend the bill's implementation period to 12 months.

    3. Councillor Jelesniak's amendment to move the single-hulled tanker ban from 2015 to 2017.

    4. Speakers amendment to clarify/consolidate the scope of the bill (radioactive and toxic waste).

    On behalf of the Commonwealth of Davishire I vote for amendments number 1 and 2 and vote against amendments numbered 3 and 4



  • Within my powers as appointed by the Anitax as the Althanian Councillor to the European Council, I, Anatolius Eustorgios vote for the following amendments;

    • Councillor Heaven's amendment
    • Councillor Walters' amendment
    • The Speaker's amendment
      I also vote against Councillor Jelesniak's amendment.

  • Mass Effect RP

    It seems that the amendment phase has concluded. Councillor Heaven's amendment has been passed with four votes for and one against. My amendment is also passed with five votes for and no against. Councillor Jelesniak's amendment is defeated, with one vote for and four votes against. The speaker's amendment is also passed with three votes for and two votes against.

    We now move to the final voting stage.

    I, John Walters, on behalf of the Confederacy of Halsberg vote FOR the bill.



  • Within my powers as appointed by the Anitax as the Althanian Councillor to the European Council, I, Anatolius Eustorgios vote for the Ocean Protection Act.


  • ECoJ

    On behalf of the Empire of Inimicus, I proudly vote AGAINST this bill.

    Ralph Jaevons



  • I, Cuxi Anyas, on behalf of Nouvelle Picardie vote FOR this bill.



  • I, Gabriela Espinosa, on behalf of the Federal Republic of Northern Caesarea vote FOR the bill.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to NS European Union was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.