[At Vote] [ga] Reducing Light Pollution

[Astrobolt]

General Assembly Resolution

Reducing Light Pollution

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental

Industry Affected: All Buisnesses - Mild

Proposed by: Simone Republic

The World Assembly (WA),

Noting that, for some WA states, light pollution harms their environments such as wildlife habitats (say migrating songbirds, fireflies and animals requiring darkness), aquatic ecosystems (sayalgae brooms) and the opportunity to observe the night sky for astronomers, as well as impacting the health of some sapient species such as interrupting their sleep patterns and confusing their circadian rhythms;

Further noting that in some cases light pollution is also resulting from excess lighting which in turn creates unnecessary energy use, which may be detrimental to the welfare of some WA states;

Acknowledging that, for WA states sharing a common border or in proximity to each other, the requirements for lighting can significantly differ, such as differences in sapient species inhabiting the relevant WA state(s), and land use (such as a wildlife reserve in one state bordering a bustling city in another state), and for differing needs to potentially come into conflict due to the ability of light pollution to creep across national boundaries via sky glow, the rusty orange haze cast by the massed lights over a wide area through the atmosphere in some WA states;

Desiring a common approach that resolves such issues through the WA in a coherent manner; hereby

1. Defines:
   
   IAO to mean the Independent Adjudicative Office of the WA;
   
   WASP to mean the Scientific Programme of the WA;
2. Requires WA states to, subject to their levels of technology sophistication, take reasonable steps in good faith to reduce light pollution without compromising on the health and safety of its own inhabitants through (merely as examples) the following means:
   
   Adopt energy-saving lighting equipment, such as lower-energy use light bulbs, dimmers and automatic switch-off lights;
   
   Proactively reduce outdoor lighting pointing skywards, such as street lighting with downward directions, motion detectors, low energy electronic billboards and low-pressure sodium lamps;
   
   Adopt land use measures to protect the habitat of species that require darkness, such as light shields and darkness reserves in national parks;
3. Permits a WA state to require the assistance of WASP in implementing measures to reduce light pollution, with all reasonable costs incurred by WASP fully indemnified by the said state;
4. Permits, if a WA state ("requesting state") shares a border with, or is in close proximity to, another WA state ("responding state"), to expressly raise a request for the responding state to reduce light pollution in areas near shared borders or other areas where the two states are close to each other, subject to the following conditions:
   
   The requesting state is to fully indemnify the responding state for all reasonable costs incurred to reduce light pollution;
   
   Either state may request the assistance of WASP in implementing measures to reduce light pollution, with all reasonable costs incurred by WASP fully indemnified by the requesting state;
   
   The responding state is permitted to reject or negotiate on the implementation of such a request if it reasonably believes that such reductions in light pollution (or lighting use in general) will harm the health and wellbeing of its own inhabitants, subject to appeals by either state to the IAO;
5. Clarifies that the IAO shall have the final authority on interpreting this resolution and on adjudicating any disputes regarding clause 4.

This is the discussion thread. To cast your vote, go HERE

[Jabberwocky]

Besides spelling errors, the grammar and syntax made my head spin a couple of times. The text itself meanders to the point of appearing confused. In addition, a couple of questions.
Do the IAO and WASP already exist or must they be invented? Who will fund WASP for the expenses it appears they will adopt? In its current form I must vote AGAINST.