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: Chemical Regulation Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Traxian Imperial Party
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: November 2147
Description[?]:
All chemicals used in greater then 1 tonne have to be investigated for environmental impact, and toxicity. This investigation will be conducted by a new govenment organisation with no industy collaboration to reduce corruption in the process. Chemicals will fall into 4 groups: 1. Fatal 2. Harmfull 3. Relatively Harmless 4. Harmless : Environmentally Friendly Chemicals used in excess of 100 tonnes will be tested first, then 10-100 tonnes, then 1-10 tonnes. Chemicals classed as Fatal are banned from industry use and reserach useage is regulated. Chemicals classed as Harmfull can be used but only by license and a yearly payment relative to its use and where the chemical ends up. Chemicals classed as Relatively Harmless can be used in bulk but still require a license. Chemicals classed as Harmless: Environmentally Friendly can be used in bulk, require no license and an award is given for using the chemical. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy concerning the use of pesticides.
Old value:: Farmers are required to list chemicals used on their crops.
Current: Farmers are required to list chemicals used on their crops.
Proposed: The government approves and regulates agricultural chemical use.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government regulation of pollution in industry.
Old value:: The government enforces moderate pollution restrictions.
Current: The government enforces highly restrictive industrial pollution standards.
Proposed: The government enforces highly restrictive industrial pollution standards.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 15:00:32, November 27, 2005 CET | From | United Soviet Party | To | Debating the Chemical Regulation Act |
Message | Good sound measures |
Date | 00:41:29, November 28, 2005 CET | From | People's Progressive Party | To | Debating the Chemical Regulation Act |
Message | Well written, we agree. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | |||||
yes |
Total Seats: 210 | |||||
no | Total Seats: 109 | |||||
abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
Random fact: In cases where a party has no seat, the default presumption should be that the party is able to contribute to debates in the legislature due to one of its members winning a seat at a by-election. However, players may collectively improvise arrangements of their own to provide a satisfying explanation for how parties with no seats in the legislature can speak and vote there. |
Random quote: "In this age, the man who dares to think for himself and to act independently does a service to his race" - John Stuart Mill |