We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Mandatory recycling
Details
Submitted by[?]: Cooperative Commonwealth Federation
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: January 2048
Description[?]:
| The introduction of voluntary recycling has improved the environment. However, in order to create economies of scale, it is necessary to expand the programme. This bill would make it compulsory for factories to recycle all products where this is technically possible. If done on a large scale, the savings from re-using recyclables will be enough to pay for the increased costs of this programme. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government-sponsored recycling programs.
Old value:: The government funds recycling facilities for public use.
Current: The government funds recycling facilities and enforces mandatory recycling for residents, commercial enterprise, and industry.
Proposed: The government funds recycling facilities and enforces mandatory recycling for residents, commercial enterprise, and industry.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:59:59, May 04, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Mandatory recycling |
| Message | The CNT/AFL will support this bill, it will curb the rapid use of resources and save tonnes from the landfills. |
| Date | 23:05:54, May 04, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Mandatory recycling |
| Message | How does the CCF intend to force businesses to comply? |
| Date | 03:56:56, May 05, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Mandatory recycling |
| Message | Fines maybe? Stopping waste collection from businesses who don't comply? Charging for waste collection? The possibilities are endless. |
| Date | 05:49:22, May 05, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Mandatory recycling |
| Message | Similar to the air pollution laws, we would prefer to rely mostly on self-monitoring by businesses, combined with random spot checks by government inspectors to make sure that business is complying with the law. If they are not, then a fine for law-breaking seems appropriate, just as people are fined for speeding. |
| Date | 06:15:18, May 05, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Mandatory recycling |
| Message | Though the Council despises anything being made mandatory, it does realize that this particular scheme will likely be more beneficial than the alternatives. The Council will support this bill, as long as the savings do indeed end up paying for the costs of it all, as the CCF suggested would occur. |
| Date | 17:50:34, May 05, 2005 CET | From |  National People's Gang | To | Debating the Mandatory recycling |
| Message | Firstly, please define "technically possible". It is technically possible to recycle anything. Secondly, reuse and recycle are different fish. The cost of recycling a particular item (ie turning it into another item) is often higher than producing that item from raw materials. Of course, using raw materials eats up resources and doesn't address the issue of spiralling waste - both of which are a major concern...but they are a crippling concern for the future. Right now, the simple economics of the situation in a profit-led economy is that recycling costs money. Some, but not all, of that cost can be recouped through the value of the end product. It's a law of diminishing return, not a have cake and eat it scenario. |
| Date | 18:05:48, May 05, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Mandatory recycling |
| Message | "Technically possible" is set at a high threshold. Where the technology exists to recycle a product, that product should be recycled (and by this is meant also to re-use in the same form, ie. beer bottles are said tol be recycled but are actualyl re-used with new labels after sterilization). ertainly recycling is part of a Three R's strategy: Reduce, Re-use, Recycle. It is our belief that althoigh there is a cost, and especially a start-up cost, the end result will be revenue-neutral. Most products are recyclable, but a few are not (nuclear waste is not recyclable, for instance). |
| Date | 21:35:02, May 05, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Mandatory recycling |
| Message | "Though the Council despises anything being made mandatory, it does realize that this particular scheme will likely be more beneficial than the alternatives." (Translated: Though it goes against everything the Council believes in, the electorate are environmentalists, and we don't want to lose popularity, do we? ;-)) |
| Date | 21:54:34, May 05, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Mandatory recycling |
| Message | (Haha, close. :D The Council does believe in environmental concerns, though. Look at its voting record on past environmental bills.) |
| Date | 22:59:59, May 05, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Mandatory recycling |
| Message | (It was like pulling teeth to get anyone to vote against the environment!) |
| Date | 23:00:47, May 05, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Mandatory recycling |
| Message | Nuclear waste is, of course, recyclable, especially if "technically possible" is set at a "high threshold". As the CCF points out, the three Rs are: Reduce Reuse and Recycle. This bill relates to recycling. The word "reuse" only appears in the nonsensical phrase "re-using recyclables". It's either one or the other. As it currently stands this bill is obscure and confusing. It fails to recognise the reality that recycling costs money. Claiming a saving is not identifying a saving. Please provide examples. |
| Date | 03:12:19, May 06, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Mandatory recycling |
| Message | "(Haha, close. :D The Council does believe in environmental concerns, though. Look at its voting record on past environmental bills.)" (Do you mind if the CNT/AFL uses the terms 'charlatans' or 'vote whores' to describe the Council during the election campaign of 2050?) |
| Date | 04:46:27, May 06, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Mandatory recycling |
| Message | (Go for it, lower yourself to smear campaigns like every other party does these days.) |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 88 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Players are expected to behave in a courteous, co-operative manner and make a reasonable effort to act with the consent of all players involved, even where the rules do not make consent strictly necessary. In particular, players have a responsibility to take reasonable care that other players are not misinformed either about the role-play or the Game Rules. |
| Random quote: "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." - Ayn Rand |