[Gnejs]

Hi,

I've been thinking about drafting an idea for a resolution on "fracking". I've been reading through the WA-forums, and going through passed resolutions; but I can't seem to find anything on this topic. But, the forums are a bit overwhelming (I don't frequent them much, or at all, really). So, do any of you more seasoned WA-experts have any tips on threads that give an overview on current drafts/ideas? Or is it really just a matter of going through it all if you want to find out if anyone is already working on this?

The idea, basically, is to propose a pragmatic take on regulating the use of fracking. It's not a question of banning fracking. I don't think that would go down well, and it seems a little invasive. It would affirm all member states rights to exploit the natural resources within their borders, and to use preferred techniques, but still call for some restrictions on the use of fracking as a method. Simply put, I saw a documentary on some people living fairly nearby a fracking operation, and their water supply was cleary being affected by the mining; you could more or less light the water on fire, and there was also talk on health risks, specifically connected to the use of chemicals in the pressurized liquid being used. So the idea was basically that this would act as the starting point; restricting the use of fracking in areas where it can potentially lead to contamination of ground water and depletion of fresh water that acts as a water source for households. That is to say that I'm not really aiming at adressing "general" environmental impacts of fracking, but in essence just enforcing some sort of distance demand; "you can't do it here, because it'll screw up people's water, but if you're outside the perimeter: go ahead." The reason for the limitation is threefold, 1) this is what peaked my interest, 2) I just think that a resolution with this aim might have an easier time getting passed than one sporting grand envirenmental ambitions and suggesting more wide-ranging regulations, and 3) fracking seems like a higly controversial and contested issue with spirits running high on whether or not it's bad, really bad, or not bad at all; therefore it would seem that if we have to agree on some lowest common denominator why not adopt a "better safe than sorry" approach and at least try and safe guard our water sources, while at the same time allowing the technique elsewhere.

I don't have a lot of free time on my hands, so I would appriciate if more experinced players could give me some feedback on whether this seems like a viable idea, or not.

Some potential obstacles:

* I don't really know that much about fracking.
* I have no idea if it's a viable idea, that is to say possible, to identify and enforce a perimeter that says "when it comes to people's water supply: this is safe from contamination, this is not safe". But how "strict" and realistic do these resolutions need to be? If I task a WA-agency (I'd rather not create something new) of finding out about some sort of "distance demands" then can't we just assume that they'll come up with these standards?
* Does this have to be in the category "environment"? The goal would not really be improving the environment as such, but rather improving people's life's through assuring them clean water.
* I also don't know the first thing about how and where to post on the forums, or what to do to further the chances of a resolution getting passed i GA. As said, I also don't have a lot of free time, so I probably won't be able to post a lot and defend the proposal, should it go that far.
* Taking the previous point in consideration, if any of you feel like this could be an idea worth developing here in the IDU, and then feel you have the time to defend in the forums/promote it etc, I would gladly develop the piece together with you, whereas as you could submit it and stand as its author (I have a feeling getting it through the WA is the biggest challenge, and therefore worthy of the "honour" of being listed as author.

This is as far as I came today on my lunch break:

Fracking reduction act
A resolution to?

Category: ? Industry affected: ? Proposed by:

Descritption: The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING the need of member states for reliable energy sources and petroleum products, among others through the use of oil and natural gas;

DEFINES ?Fracking? as a mining technique were a highly pressurized liquid consisting of water, sand and chemicals is introduced into subterranean shafts, etc. with the intent to force open new cracks and existing crevices for the purpose of extracting oil or gas;

AFFIRMING all member states right to exploit natural resources within their own borders, within the confines of General Assembly resolutions previously passed;

CONCERNED however, that the highly controversial technique of ?Fracking? is associated with several risks in terms of environmental impacts on ground water contamination, fresh water depletion, air quality reduction, pollution and also potentially triggering earthquakes;

Something about that people should have clean water...

BELIEVING it to be in the best interest of all member states to adopt a pragmatic and balanced approach to international legislation regulating the use of high-risk extraction techniques;

The suggestion on not being allowed to "frack" certain places

Giving a task to a WA-agency

etc.

[Bears Armed]

So far the GA has seen two defeated proposals on this subject, and a number of further attempts that did not get past the drafting stage. For your reference, their threads can be found at:

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic...t=fracking
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic...t=fracking

and

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic...t=fracking
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic...#p22110402
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic...t=fracking
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic...t=fracking
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic...g#p6340157

:Bear:

[Gnejs]

Thank you, I'll check them out.

Seems that I at least was correct in labeling the subject as contested.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I don't have much time now but in the week I'll comment further. Here's a draft I had written.

[Gnejs]

Reading these threads allows me to assert a few things

1. The dedication and seriousness of players truly comitted to the art of WA-legislation is awe-inspiring.
2. Really doing this right, and investeing the level of commitment that seems required, probaly necessitates more time than I have.
3. All things considered, "Fracking" is probably not the best place to start.

But, just out of curiosity and for the sake of learning, I'd appreciate your take on the general outline of my draft. Let's say we disregard the history of previous attempts, what would your take on this idea be? Viable, silly?

Looking forward to a few comments from you, Dark Star. Very elegant draft.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Your idea has merit in that it recognises a bit more nuance than the generic "ban fracking!" attempts. I'm still not entirely sold, though.

I personally think environmental laws in the WA should concentrate on transnational impact. If a nation wants to pollute their own countryside, then so be it; the WA's role is to step in when the environmental factors aren't confined to their own borders, such as ozone depletion. This isn't meant to be a bullish "national sovereigntist" stance: it was something that Mikitivity, a player who taught me a lot about these things as he was a RL environmental scientist and active in MUN, strongly favoured despite being much less starkly sovereigntist on issues of human rights or disarmament, and it's also something that reflects the principle of subsidiarity. IRL there is in fact some international law on this topic, the Aarhus Convention, and the only reason I've never tried proposing such a thing is that ironically in NationStates, the self-proclaimed "national sovereigntists" would end up voting it down!

In the case of fracking, such effects could only really occur at the transnational level through groundwater pollution, and that's something that should already be covered by Article 3.IV of the Transboundary Water Use Act.

[Gnejs]

Thank you for your feedback.

It's a fair point, focusing WA-effort in environmental issues on cross-border impact. I think I actually remember Mik speaking of it from way back. You could probably make a case for "fracking" reaching that criteria in other ways than just groundwater pollution, but, that said, the water was my main interest and I agree the act you refrenced should cover cross-border instances of contamination caused by fracking.

Thinking over my idea now, it might not be very productive to go into such detail regulating a specific technique/sector based on a principle about "everyone should have clean water". An interest in water should maybe rather result in a proposal dealing with water, as the one you mentioned.

Well, I feel like I've learned a bit. That's always nice. I'll come back if other ideas should strike me.

[The Dark Star Republic]

At the risk of being unbearably patronising, I wish all WA players took comments with the good grace you have! I certainly hope you continue contributing should other ideas rear their heads.