14 nations commit to protect oceans(nationalgeographic.co.uk)
nationalgeographic.co.uk
14 nations commit to protect oceans
https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/environment-and-conservation/2020/12/in-rare-show-of-solidarity-14-key-nations-commit-to-protect
129 comments
And good on them! I like whales and I think nations should coordinate to ensure that they stick around, but this doesn't have to mean that we ban whaling forever. As with most natural resources, managed harvest is a better long-term policy than an absolute ban.
Um, no. Whales are sentient creatures. We should not be slaughtering commercial quantities of whales. I'm fine with the northern aboriginal people killing their 7 whales, but I'm not down with Japan killing thousands because the meat is a delicacy, oh I mean "research".
I'm willing to make a compromise though. If we can hunt human children, your children, then I think that would be fair. Either we can kill any sentient animal for money/sport or none of them.
I'll see myself out.
I'm willing to make a compromise though. If we can hunt human children, your children, then I think that would be fair. Either we can kill any sentient animal for money/sport or none of them.
I'll see myself out.
> I'm fine with the northern aboriginal people killing their 7 whales
I think you're grossly understating the extent of aboriginal whaling. Reading numbers off the table at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling#Whaling_catches_by_loc... and cross-checking with the "by country" writeups below: Canada kills a thousand whales per year, about 2:1 narwhals to belugas, with "subsistence" amounts of bowheads. Greenland contributes about equal numbers of belugas and narwhals, and half as many minkes. Alaska contributes almost as many beluga kills, but also about a hundred bowheads a year. Faroese pilot whale kills number another ~800 per year. Any two of these four outstrip the scale of all commercial whaling.
Let's dispense, too, with the delusion that these aboriginal peoples "don't take more than they need and they use the entire animal":
> Hunters in Hudson's Bay rarely eat beluga meat. They give a little to dogs, and leave the rest for wild animals.[15] Other areas may dry the meat for later consumption by humans. An average of one or two vertebrae and one or two teeth per beluga or narwhal are carved and sold.[15]
Aboriginal whaling is no less reprehensible than the commercial variety. Hell, at least commercial whaling is mostly constrained to operating at profit.
I think you're grossly understating the extent of aboriginal whaling. Reading numbers off the table at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling#Whaling_catches_by_loc... and cross-checking with the "by country" writeups below: Canada kills a thousand whales per year, about 2:1 narwhals to belugas, with "subsistence" amounts of bowheads. Greenland contributes about equal numbers of belugas and narwhals, and half as many minkes. Alaska contributes almost as many beluga kills, but also about a hundred bowheads a year. Faroese pilot whale kills number another ~800 per year. Any two of these four outstrip the scale of all commercial whaling.
Let's dispense, too, with the delusion that these aboriginal peoples "don't take more than they need and they use the entire animal":
> Hunters in Hudson's Bay rarely eat beluga meat. They give a little to dogs, and leave the rest for wild animals.[15] Other areas may dry the meat for later consumption by humans. An average of one or two vertebrae and one or two teeth per beluga or narwhal are carved and sold.[15]
Aboriginal whaling is no less reprehensible than the commercial variety. Hell, at least commercial whaling is mostly constrained to operating at profit.
I saw "The Cove" a couple of days ago (in streaming here, btw https://azm.to/movie/the-cove ) where Japan is portrayed pretty bad: the worst is how they "engage" small/poor countries to support their national policy over fishing: the list of these 14 reminds me that a bit.
Anyhow, as some of you said: it's probably better then nothing
Anyhow, as some of you said: it's probably better then nothing
I hope this might be the start of a solution to the planet wide tragedy of the commons of the ocean. I do not have high hopes. The territory is too large and the criminals too small.
If I was President, I'd declare some offshore zones as National Parks. No fishing or motorized boats would be allowed in them.
I imagine our next president may be sympathetic to this issue.
Nations can only control their sovereign seas. The majority of the world oceans are unpoliced. And honestly, I don't see why I, as a developing nation, shouldn't overfish the seas. The developed nations (excluding perhaps the US for being so young) are where they are because they chopped their forests, killed their wildlife, and burned what else they could find.
England isn't going to reforest. Germany isn't going to reintroduce all the wildlife they hunted. And the peoples of neither nation have paid reparations to the Earth (for good reason, they can't afford to). If I were running China, the right thing for me to do is to strip the Earth dry, and then a century later when I'm rich demand that "All nations must do their part".
After all, it's not like anyone will make me pay for everything that happened a century ago. So you'll either have to make me not do this or you're going to have to suck it up. China's navy doesn't have the ability to protect her shipping fleets so that's her problem.
England isn't going to reforest. Germany isn't going to reintroduce all the wildlife they hunted. And the peoples of neither nation have paid reparations to the Earth (for good reason, they can't afford to). If I were running China, the right thing for me to do is to strip the Earth dry, and then a century later when I'm rich demand that "All nations must do their part".
After all, it's not like anyone will make me pay for everything that happened a century ago. So you'll either have to make me not do this or you're going to have to suck it up. China's navy doesn't have the ability to protect her shipping fleets so that's her problem.
> I don't see why I, as a developing nation, shouldn't overfish the seas.
Developed nations should pay them not to.
Developed nations should pay them not to.
We tried this with Brazil. Result: They continued to remove forests and said "and if you don't pay anymore we will accelerate it". So, sounds good in theory, is not in good in practice.
Embargoes. Sanctions. Tariffs. Freeze assets abroad. This is not a difficult problem to solve. It just needs some balls.
Economically, I agree that this is how the resources should flow. Practically, I suspect there is an enforcement problem.
Most of the forest in the US has been cut at least once.
We also reduced the Bison population from tens of millions down to ~150,000.
So no different really.
We also reduced the Bison population from tens of millions down to ~150,000.
So no different really.
Haha, okay, there we go then.
Perhaps the best way for us to preserve land for trees in America is to buy Weyerhaeuser stock.
Perhaps the best way for us to preserve land for trees in America is to buy Weyerhaeuser stock.
That's like saying "As a developing nation, I don't see why I should mandate fire code. Developed nations are where they are because workers burnt to death in gruesome preventable disasters."
And, mind you, in any developing nation, there will be people who raise these rhetorics and try to make it an issue of national pride or something. Because these people have much to gain by keeping workers in dangerous buildings, bulldozing national forests, or depleting fisheries.
And, mind you, in any developing nation, there will be people who raise these rhetorics and try to make it an issue of national pride or something. Because these people have much to gain by keeping workers in dangerous buildings, bulldozing national forests, or depleting fisheries.
Sure. If I were running a developing nation I would do precisely those things: burn my people in a furnace that accelerates overall development. Every single success story of the last century has taken this strategy. Because it turns out that the best way to make life better for future citizens is to throw some smaller number of present citizens in the furnace.
China didn't raise 400 million out of poverty by accident. Lives were paid. Intentionally.
China didn't raise 400 million out of poverty by accident. Lives were paid. Intentionally.
>The 14 members are Australia, Canada, Chile, Ghana, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Namibia, Norway, Portugal, and the island nations of Fiji, Jamaica, and Palau.
Also from TFA:
> Combined, they represent 40 percent of the world’s coastlines, 30 percent of the offshore exclusive economic zones, 20 percent of the world’s fisheries, and 20 percent of the world’s shipping fleet.
> Combined, they represent 40 percent of the world’s coastlines, 30 percent of the offshore exclusive economic zones, 20 percent of the world’s fisheries, and 20 percent of the world’s shipping fleet.
> 40 percent of the world’s coastlines
At what resolution? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox
At what resolution? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox
Presumably it’s 40% at any resolution. Specifically I would think any two coastlines would increase proportionately for a fixed increase in resolution.
I doubt this matters, but it seems different kind of coastlines would have different length at different resolution. i.e. the presence of fjords compared to long sandy beaches would produce diverging measures.
Or, if rivers have large deltas or estuaries you could get very different measures.
Or, if rivers have large deltas or estuaries you could get very different measures.
Yup, see this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_length_of...
In the list of the article here, Norway in particular tipped me off, as it's incredibly jagged coastline can be lead to great resolution-dependent differences.
In the list of the article here, Norway in particular tipped me off, as it's incredibly jagged coastline can be lead to great resolution-dependent differences.
[deleted]
Does this mean that Japan will now stop their “research” whale hunts?
If it doesn’t, I am worried about how much this commitment is real.
If it doesn’t, I am worried about how much this commitment is real.
Some Japanese people I speak with who work in the marine industry believe that whales are a major threat to fish stocks and are gobbling up all the fish so that not enough is left for humans.
I don't believe that's true and make an effort to persuade them otherwise. But at the very least I'm sure that many Japanese people (based on what they have been taught) earnestly do not see an incongruity between whaling and a desire to protect the oceans.
I don't believe that's true and make an effort to persuade them otherwise. But at the very least I'm sure that many Japanese people (based on what they have been taught) earnestly do not see an incongruity between whaling and a desire to protect the oceans.
Why single out Japan? Canada, Greenland, Faroe Islands, and Norway all exceed it. Canada and Norway are signatories of this new commitment.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling#Whaling_catches_by_loc...
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling#Whaling_catches_by_loc...
The only people who do whaling in Canada are the First Nations, and they do it in Canada's territorial waters:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Canada
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_whaling
They generally eat it, make art, and perhaps use parts for traditional clothing.
Japan on the other hand (a) has no Indigenous peoples following their traditional ways, (b) often violates the waters of other countries, and (c) has no basis for scientific inquiry (as ruled by the ICJ):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Japan
You don't see Intuit fisherman in the Southern Ocean off the coast Antarctic, but you do see Japanese fishing boats.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Canada
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_whaling
They generally eat it, make art, and perhaps use parts for traditional clothing.
Japan on the other hand (a) has no Indigenous peoples following their traditional ways, (b) often violates the waters of other countries, and (c) has no basis for scientific inquiry (as ruled by the ICJ):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Japan
You don't see Intuit fisherman in the Southern Ocean off the coast Antarctic, but you do see Japanese fishing boats.
> The only people who do whaling in Canada are the First Nations
That makes things worse. You're defending something like a couple of million people for killing 4510 whales, while vilifying a country of 125 million for killing 2080 whales.
So, (a) it makes no difference to the intelligent creatures whether they are killed in the name of "science" or "traditional ways" (b) whales have extensive ranges, so going where they live vs. waiting for them to come to you are both just as bad, and (c) there is enough scientific reason for everyone to stop killing whales.
That makes things worse. You're defending something like a couple of million people for killing 4510 whales, while vilifying a country of 125 million for killing 2080 whales.
So, (a) it makes no difference to the intelligent creatures whether they are killed in the name of "science" or "traditional ways" (b) whales have extensive ranges, so going where they live vs. waiting for them to come to you are both just as bad, and (c) there is enough scientific reason for everyone to stop killing whales.
Strange fact: the Inuit are not classified as First Nations for some reason. Instead, they fall under the general rubric of "aboriginal". On the other hand, the Metis are regarded as First Nations, which makes little sense.
I think it would depend on who you asked for the Inuit. In places where they were both aboriginal and first nations those terms are mostly different articulations of the same thing, with personal preference of the person you are describing ultimately being the right choice.
This is a pretty good article on it through the lens of Australia.
https://www.commonground.org.au/learn/aboriginal-or-indigeno...
This is a pretty good article on it through the lens of Australia.
https://www.commonground.org.au/learn/aboriginal-or-indigeno...
It's actually codified in the Canadian Constitution. See paragraph 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit
(a) Wat. The Japanese people are just as indigenous as Canada's. Just because a people did not get conquered does not make them less indigenous. Unless your making a comment about the jomon...
How about:
> Japan on the other hand (a) has no Indigenous peoples && following their traditional ways
What is done now in Japan, regardless of whether we want to apply 'indigenous' to the current people or not, can hardly be called "traditional":
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Japan#Modernization
Or did the ancestors of Japan's current whalers used to travel down to Antartica / the Southern Ocean in previous centuries? If the Japanese want to fish in their territorial / EEZ waters, then that is something that could be more acceptable. But that is not what they're doing AFAICT.
If the Intuit travelled thousands of miles and used vessels with commercial-grade refrigeration, then I think plenty of people would object to their actions as well.
> Japan on the other hand (a) has no Indigenous peoples && following their traditional ways
What is done now in Japan, regardless of whether we want to apply 'indigenous' to the current people or not, can hardly be called "traditional":
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Japan#Modernization
Or did the ancestors of Japan's current whalers used to travel down to Antartica / the Southern Ocean in previous centuries? If the Japanese want to fish in their territorial / EEZ waters, then that is something that could be more acceptable. But that is not what they're doing AFAICT.
If the Intuit travelled thousands of miles and used vessels with commercial-grade refrigeration, then I think plenty of people would object to their actions as well.
I thought the Ainu people were the original inhabitants of much of Japan? Or am I mistaken?
The Ainu are believed to be descendants of the Joumon and related peoples, whose presence in the Japanese archipelago indeed precedes the introduction of the Yayoi people who are thought to be the main stock of the currently dominant ethnic group of Japan.
The thing is, though, the latter arrivals were some 2~3000 years ago. For comparison, the Yayoi incursion not only predates not only the entire traceable history of the Inuit people, but also that of the (unrelated) Dorset culture that they're believed to have driven out. I'm not sure there's a principled metric by which Canada's whalers are "Indigenous peoples following their traditional ways" and nearly all Japanese people aren't.
The thing is, though, the latter arrivals were some 2~3000 years ago. For comparison, the Yayoi incursion not only predates not only the entire traceable history of the Inuit people, but also that of the (unrelated) Dorset culture that they're believed to have driven out. I'm not sure there's a principled metric by which Canada's whalers are "Indigenous peoples following their traditional ways" and nearly all Japanese people aren't.
I agree with you. The whole "we were here first" argument tends to fall apart at a certain time horizon, almost like there's a statute of limitations on what constitutes "indigenous".
Because the aboriginal people don't take more than they need and they use the entire animal. The Japanese are doing it for the meat ($$$) exclusively.
Let's give the people that haven't destroyed their own environment a bit of leeway. IMO, a marker of intelligence isn't building rockets, it's not shitting where you eat.
Let's give the people that haven't destroyed their own environment a bit of leeway. IMO, a marker of intelligence isn't building rockets, it's not shitting where you eat.
[deleted]
What is the problem with whaling if done in a sustainable way?
There's no real purpose to whale and it seems unethical. Why not eat humans?
Whaling is much more humane than industrialized animal farming.
Ok but non-industrialized animal farming is much more humane than whaling or industrialized animal farming. Reducing meat consumption is more humane than all of the above.
Not sure if non-industrialized farming is more humane than whaling, but I agree on your last point. :-)
Is it sustainable or "sustainable?" (As in, not really sustainable, but spun so people think it's sustainable?)
At current catch rates it's very sustainable.
Citations?
No, cetaceans.
lmaooo
That’s genuinely funny but HN frowns on posts that are only jokes or puns, FYI.
Even IWC says on their website that current catch rates are not a threat to whale populations. Fisheries (bycatch/entanglement) are a much bigger threat.
Well, what's the problem with eating, say, gorillas, if done in a sustainable way?
You don't need to be a card-carrying PETA vegan to find it quite off-putting to eat self-aware social animals with some of the world's largest brains.
You don't need to be a card-carrying PETA vegan to find it quite off-putting to eat self-aware social animals with some of the world's largest brains.
> Well, what's the problem with eating, say, gorillas, if done in a sustainable way?
There's no problem with eating these animals if it's a cultural norm. Many indigenous peoples in Africa, eg the Bari of Sudan, eat monkeys and other apes. Whales have been hunted in Canada by aboriginal peoples since time immemorial. It doesn't matter how smart or social you are. Someone or something unsympathetic is going to eat you, and it just might be humans who don't share your (actually our) ethical ideas.
There's no problem with eating these animals if it's a cultural norm. Many indigenous peoples in Africa, eg the Bari of Sudan, eat monkeys and other apes. Whales have been hunted in Canada by aboriginal peoples since time immemorial. It doesn't matter how smart or social you are. Someone or something unsympathetic is going to eat you, and it just might be humans who don't share your (actually our) ethical ideas.
This defense of anthropophagy (or, why stop there and not include also human sacrifices) in the name of cultural norm, was intended to be sarcastic, wasn't it?
Maybe humans can be better.
I don't draw the line in the consciousness-of-the-animal dimension. I draw the line on the life conditions of the animal dimension.
There's nothing wrong with killing gorillas and eating them as long as we don't imprison them for life in overcrowded farms like we do with chicken, pigs and cows.
Killing animals while they're free in their natural habitat is fine, or at least it's 1000x better than what we currently do.
There's nothing wrong with killing gorillas and eating them as long as we don't imprison them for life in overcrowded farms like we do with chicken, pigs and cows.
Killing animals while they're free in their natural habitat is fine, or at least it's 1000x better than what we currently do.
I like the dish "Whale bacon". It's pretty un-PC, but would eat again.
I wish christians not to regulate all over the world in their way.
I'll happily bite that bullet: in principle there is nothing wrong with eating gorillas. Or whales, or dolphins, or whatever other non-human species we're projecting onto today.
Japan has resumed commercial whaling since July 2019
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/02/asia/japan-first-whale-catch-...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/02/asia/japan-first-whale-catch-...
I imagine the US will come on board some time after January 20.
Just as Japan is about to dump a million ton (or more?) of radioactive water (from Fukushima) into the ocean.
“Radioactive water” in this context means “normal water with trace amounts of tritium, which emits radiation that is less harmful than sunlight”.
A million tons doesn't even sound like that much?
1 million metric tons = 1 million cubic meters. That's only a 100m cube of water..
1 million metric tons = 1 million cubic meters. That's only a 100m cube of water..
It is gonna dillute so much it will not be a problem at all...
Radioactivity isn’t really a big deal for animals and non-sentients. It mostly prevents humans from entering certain areas, which in this case maybe it’s good that humans will avoid them so animals could thrive there.
What about caught radioactive fish that humans will eat?
I'd be more worried about the mercury that's already there
Once again, a problem for humans which means animals eventually could thrive
We aren't the only animals that eat fish.
The animals don’t care about radiation. They will die of something else long before they die of radiation, some might even mutate in beneficial ways.
That seems like a rather uneducated guess. Some species of shark for example live a very long time (bordering on immortal), and orcas live as long as many humans.
So you’re saying animals care.
What animals think is unknowable. It’s just as valid to say they care as to say they don’t care. We can say that they do try to stay alive as long as possible. But what does it matter what their thoughts are anyway? Physics cares about radiation, biology cares. There is no way arbitrary human-introduced tissue damage from radiation is going to be good for any creature on earth. This is wrong, no buts about it.
[deleted]
Don't panic! Don't worry! China is more than willing to pick up the ocean destroying slack from these 14 nations! They're already doing around 80% of the damage, how could they not just do a bit more?
It's crazy how activists never point at the ones who do the most damage.
Can finger pointing really solve anything though?
Starting a wider conversation and raising awareness will probably help a lot more in the long run.
Starting a wider conversation and raising awareness will probably help a lot more in the long run.
China is indeed doing most of the damage, but you may not realize that they're actually aware of it and they do care. China is also doing the most research into recycling and sustainability and making the most progress. It's a big country, a lot of things can happen all at once.
China cares about recycling and sustainability of their own resources.
There's very little evidence they care that their fishing fleets are destroying fish stocks halfway across the world.
There's very little evidence they care that their fishing fleets are destroying fish stocks halfway across the world.
I don’t know what a China embargo would look like, but I know that any first world government who tried it would find themselves promptly removed from power and a newer Chinese friendly government installed amongst rabid cries for new iPhones and gadgets.
Embargoes aren't used much anymore. Countries use tariffs. Which the US has shown are actually quite effective against China, because China has a legitimate fear of competitors springing up elsewhere since once they exist they may continue to exist even after the tariffs are gone.
So they respond by devaluing their currency to remain competitive even against the tariffs, which is equivalent to paying the tariffs rather than passing the cost on to the customers. But then your own citizens don't feel the pinch from the tariffs and you can maintain them indefinitely, or even increase them, until you get what you're asking for.
That assumes you're a large enough player to get them to respond that way, but smaller players can form coalitions.
So they respond by devaluing their currency to remain competitive even against the tariffs, which is equivalent to paying the tariffs rather than passing the cost on to the customers. But then your own citizens don't feel the pinch from the tariffs and you can maintain them indefinitely, or even increase them, until you get what you're asking for.
That assumes you're a large enough player to get them to respond that way, but smaller players can form coalitions.
Ask Australia about China's recent embargo, and then argue that embargoes aren't used anymore.
>I don’t know what a China embargo would look like, but I know that any first world government who tried it would find themselves promptly removed from power and a newer Chinese friendly government installed amongst rabid cries for new iPhones and gadgets.
Bingo.
I mean, right this minute we're all ignoring a literal concentration camp in China in the name of not upsetting our supply of cheap gadgets. Good luck getting support over something less tangible.
Bingo.
I mean, right this minute we're all ignoring a literal concentration camp in China in the name of not upsetting our supply of cheap gadgets. Good luck getting support over something less tangible.
"China embargo" could be replaced with many other terms. Here's another to try on for size:
> I don’t know what a Global Warming Plan would look like, but I know that any first world government who tried it would find themselves promptly removed from power and a newer consumer/polluter friendly government installed amongst rabid cries for new iPhones and maintaining current niceties of life.
> I don’t know what a Global Warming Plan would look like, but I know that any first world government who tried it would find themselves promptly removed from power and a newer consumer/polluter friendly government installed amongst rabid cries for new iPhones and maintaining current niceties of life.
[deleted]
These are not the "key" nations. Those are USA, China, India, Japan, EU, Britain. Until they get on board, it's still too little (and probably too late).
Well, Japan is one of them.
> The group of 14 looks nothing like the usual assemblage of international leaders recruited for global initiatives. France, with its vast array of overseas territories that gives it one of the planet’s largest ocean footprints, was not invited. Nor were the powerhouse players of Russia, China, or the United States.
> “Negotiation with that category of country isn’t all that easy,” says Vidar Helgesen, Norway’s former Minister of Climate and Environment and the driving force behind the project. “We decided to get a group where high politics wouldn’t get in the way and we could be focused on the task.”
> The idea, Helgesen says, was to gather a coalition of the willing—a like-minded group of countries with the ocean deeply embedded in their culture and history—to conduct discussions that would be underpinned by science.
I think this looks like a good move. IMHO, a big problem with environmental challenges is this idea that a solution has to be some all-or-nothing affair, and because of the perceived insurmountability, nothing gets done politically. Getting a group of nations to do something because they _need_ to seems like a good fire under people's asses to get the ball moving.
> The group of 14 looks nothing like the usual assemblage of international leaders recruited for global initiatives. France, with its vast array of overseas territories that gives it one of the planet’s largest ocean footprints, was not invited. Nor were the powerhouse players of Russia, China, or the United States.
> “Negotiation with that category of country isn’t all that easy,” says Vidar Helgesen, Norway’s former Minister of Climate and Environment and the driving force behind the project. “We decided to get a group where high politics wouldn’t get in the way and we could be focused on the task.”
> The idea, Helgesen says, was to gather a coalition of the willing—a like-minded group of countries with the ocean deeply embedded in their culture and history—to conduct discussions that would be underpinned by science.
I think this looks like a good move. IMHO, a big problem with environmental challenges is this idea that a solution has to be some all-or-nothing affair, and because of the perceived insurmountability, nothing gets done politically. Getting a group of nations to do something because they _need_ to seems like a good fire under people's asses to get the ball moving.
It might also serve as a proof of concept that makes it easier for larger countries to sign on.
When it comes to the oceans, add France to the list. Due to their island holdings around the globe, they have the world's largest maritime exclusive economic zone, covering 8% of the surface of the Earth.
You may have missed that he mentioned the whole EU :)
The EU is not a nation, and foreign policy is a bit of sovereignty several member states really do not want to give up. And France perhaps more than most.
Fisheries policy, on the other hand, very much is in the remit of the EU.
Right, but it depends where. The EU does not say much about how France runs most of its overseas territories, including French Polynesia and New Caledonia. Less than 10% of France’s surface area (land+sea) is actually in Europe.
Q: On what continent is the EU's largest park?
A: South America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guiana_Amazonian_Park
A: South America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guiana_Amazonian_Park
> The 14 members are Australia, Canada, Chile, Ghana, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Namibia, Norway, Portugal, and the island nations of Fiji, Jamaica, and Palau.
So at least Japan is on board.
So at least Japan is on board.
Australia is comfortable doing their per capita bit plus extra destroying arguably one of the most valuable biological assets in the world (the Great Barrier Reef), so it’s kind of sad to see the hypocrisy.
How so is Australia actively destroying the Barrier Reef over and above the world as a whole? The main issue is coral bleaching, which seems to driven by sea temperature rise - Australia only contributes maybe 2% of global CO2 emissions at worst.
Australia is generally figured to have the highest, or very nearly the highest, per-capita emissions of the developed world, and that's not accounting for its coal exports (which are the second largest in the world).
Can’t build a better future with cynicism.
Can't built a better future with blind optimism either
Let's agree to be cynical about the motives and results of institutions that are by and large out of control, and to be optimistic about the outcome of our own individual actions.
You can build a better future with or without optimism. You cannot build a better world if the default position being communicated and adopted is cynical and defeatist.
I think you can put together a list of counter examples pretty easily. Blind optimism is perfectly fine for making progress, in the cases where the action taken turns out to work.
Plenty of people started businesses on what may be termed blind optimism and succeeded.
I think it even helps a little to underestimate the obstacles in innovation - otherwise one might not attempt it in the first place. But just a little, because diverging too far from reality brings its own problems.
Optimism is essential to progress.
Plenty of people started businesses on what may be termed blind optimism and succeeded.
I think it even helps a little to underestimate the obstacles in innovation - otherwise one might not attempt it in the first place. But just a little, because diverging too far from reality brings its own problems.
Optimism is essential to progress.
But we can all build a better future together. :)
You mean the cynicism that the nations producing the most waste (UK, US, etc) are not part of the effort? Yes, that's very cynical of those nations indeed.
Disagree! This is a smart way to go about this. As they say in the article, “Negotiation with that category of country isn’t all that easy,” whereas they can form effective policies in their absence and then gain momentum to pressure others to join.
They address this in the article. Smaller nations were chosen to focus on the issue at hand, and not to get caught up in politics.
[deleted]
I don't see how any commitment to protect the oceans can be taken seriously without China committing to it. See this prior comment I made in a different discussion, concerning China's distant fishing fleet, which is ravaging ocean environments worldwide: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25120998
A great recent book that touches on the topic of overfishing and ecological damage to the oceans is: The Outlaw Ocean: Journeys Across the Last Untamed Frontier by Ian Urbina.
I'm still surprised the "99%" haven't made a pact to all use a cryptocurrency. I can understand why the 5 wealthiest nations that all want to be the one with a world reserve fiat global enslavement system would oppose such a thing.. but the bottom 190 nations with no chance of theirs being the world reserve currency should all get together and agree to use, contribute to, and defend Bitcoin. These allied nations could agree to contribute at least some minimum, and not exceed 25% of the mining power, with each nation limited to 1/195th of that total. Any attempt at corrupting should be seen as a crime, and act of war, against humanity.
Since it's buried a little:
> The 14 members are Australia, Canada, Chile, Ghana, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Namibia, Norway, Portugal, and the island nations of Fiji, Jamaica, and Palau.
> The 14 members are Australia, Canada, Chile, Ghana, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Namibia, Norway, Portugal, and the island nations of Fiji, Jamaica, and Palau.
I like this approach of coalitions of the willing. If the willing can gain critical mass they can hopefully apply enough trade pressure/incentives for the unwilling to join too. These sorts of efforts seem to need momentum. Everything seems impossible until it's done.
as a Chilean, I'm a bit sceptical
Posturing. Almost all of the plastic pollution in the ocean comes out of 5 river systems in Asia
Wait, I thought banning convenient shopping bags and drinking utensils was supposed to fix everything.
"not the usual gang of suspects" ehr, Canada is there ;)
Australia, the country destroying its own Great Barrier Reef on the altar of resource extraction (coal, etc), is promising to protect oceans? This commitment isn't worth the paper it's written on.
The Great Barrier Reef will continue to deteriorate until the problems of global warming and ocean acidification are resolved.
But these aren't the only problems the ocean is facing. Resolving other issues will help maintain the health of ocean ecosystems.
It's likely wishful thinking but possibly it will be harder to justify new coal mines etc if enough of these individual agreements are accepted. :shrug:
But these aren't the only problems the ocean is facing. Resolving other issues will help maintain the health of ocean ecosystems.
It's likely wishful thinking but possibly it will be harder to justify new coal mines etc if enough of these individual agreements are accepted. :shrug:
> The Great Barrier Reef will continue to deteriorate until the problems of global warming and ocean acidification are resolved.
Yes and Australia has been actively working against that while laughing about the plight of the islanders who're most affected by climate change "time doesn't mean anything when you're about to have water lapping at your door" - Home Affairs Min. Dutton https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-11/dutton-overheard-joki...
At COP25, it was Australia (along with Saudi Arabia and Brazil) who were blocking progress.
Yes and Australia has been actively working against that while laughing about the plight of the islanders who're most affected by climate change "time doesn't mean anything when you're about to have water lapping at your door" - Home Affairs Min. Dutton https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-11/dutton-overheard-joki...
At COP25, it was Australia (along with Saudi Arabia and Brazil) who were blocking progress.
One should expect sustainable whaling to be top of this groups agenda.