.
~ Useful Links ~
.

---

• Repeal: "Asbestos Consumption, Disposal and Worker Protection"

---

• Target Resolution

---

• Forum thread

---

• General Assembly voting page

Summary

In the building construction system, asbestos-based materials are considered especially heinous. In the World Assembly, the dedicated legislators who regulate these dangerous carcinogens are members of an elite squad known as the Refugia Regional Council. These are their stories.

If you're not familiar, asbestos is a type of material that was used a lot in construction back in the day. It's no longer used in many countries because it's been found to be quite carcinogenic (read: it directly causes cancer) and has other detrimental health effects directly associated with exposure to it. The resolution this is trying to repeal, GAR#435, lays out a series of ground rules for how asbestos should be handed by member states: namely, that mining for asbestos and producing products which contain it must be banned, people who will be exposed to it must be protected via short durations and extensive safety protocols, and that they must not be exposed to more than a certain amount. It goes into some further detail about how to dismantle structures and dispose of asbestos materials, you can click the link in the sidebar on the right and read the details yourself if you're interested.

The repeal makes a few arguments against this:

- In clauses 1 and 2, the author argues that banning asbestos will negatively impact construction in nations which are used to using it.
- In clause 3, they point out that the target proposal doesn't detail standards for testing and reporting asbestos contents in structures. Because of this being left up to member state governments, they suggest that property owners, designers, etc. will avoid disclosing the presence of asbestos in their buildings, which generates more risk for workers.
- Clause 4 claims that the target requires "brick-by-brick" deconstruction of asbestos-containing buildings in order to avoid creating dust, and that the stringent worker safety requirements laid out will actually increase public exposure due to increased labour hours required.
- And clause 5 suggests that an exception should exist for buildings which contain asbestos as a reinforcing agent sealed within concrete, where it doesn't pose a public safety risk. It goes on to imagine a nation in which asbestos is a common construction material, all buildings are evacuated, everybody is homeless and jobless, cats and dogs sleeping together, absolute madness!

Are these good arguments? It's true that such a prohibition could have a major economic impact on a nation which relies on this material, but given the known health risks from exposure, this seems like a case in which the economic impact may be a secondary consideration against the well-being of individuals. In the author's proposed replacement legislation [viewtopic.php?f=9&t=522807], there would be a mandatory inspection every five years for buildings which are likely to contain asbestos - which is good - but member states would be given a (5) five year grace period after exposure before having to condemn the structure. This seems overly lenient, and I'd like to see mandates tightened up on any future replacement drafts. This same proposed repeal also doesn't contain any mandate for property owners, etc. to report asbestos content: the very complaint used in clause 3 of this repeal.

As far as clause 4 goes, the "brick-by-brick" reading of GAR#435 is an exaggeration, if not an outright Honest Mistake rules violation. Again, the author's ideal replacement doesn't even address worker safety in demolishing condemned buildings, which tells us a few things about the ideological thrust behind this repeal. I understand that heavy restrictions do create red tape, but cutting them all away at the expense of construction workers' health doesn't sit right with me. I'm more sympathetic to the point in clause 5 about some applications of asbestos being okay, but the posturing about a potential economic crash is a bit much.

HOWEVER! There's one additional wrinkle. GAR#435 contains several instances of plagiarism from the real-world European Union law on asbestos exposure, which you can read here. Some of the bulleted items in the legislation are modified slightly, while others are word-for-world lifted from this extant EU law.

What do we do with this? Plagiarism is unacceptable, of course, but so too is Wallenburg's prioritization of economic growth over human health and safety which is so evident in this repeal and the aforementioned replacement text. I'd fully support a repeal and replacement which sought to enshrine strong protections and regulations once again, but repeals cannot be repealed or revoked - they're on the record forever. I think we can do better and be selective about the attitudes and messages we place in the permanent record of the filing cabinets of the GA.

Having resolved that the repeal author has employed disingenuous arguments for the sake of putting the free market above the lives of WA member nations' constituents, and with the agreement that this is more harmful than the plagiarized lines in the existing law, the Refugia Councillor of World Assembly Affairs recommends voting against Repeal: "Asbestos Consumption, Disposal and Worker Protection".