Nations Promise To Protect 30% of Planet To Stem Extinction 31
Close to 200 countries reached a watershed agreement early Monday to stem the loss of nature worldwide, pledging to protect nearly a third of Earth's land and oceans as a refuge for the planet's remaining wild plants and animals by the end of the decade. From a report: A room of bleary-eyed delegates erupted in applause in the wee hours after agreeing to the landmark framework at the U.N. biodiversity summit, called COP15. The hope is to turn the tide on an ongoing extinction crisis. About a million species are at risk of disappearing forever, a mass extinction event scientists say is on par with the devastation wrought by the asteroid that wiped out most dinosaurs.
Today's loss of biodiversity is being driven not by a space rock but by one species: humans. The loss of habitat, exploitation of species, climate change, pollution and destruction from invasive species moved by people between continents are all driving a decline in the variety of plants and animals. Nations now have the next eight years to hit their targets for protecting life. With few legal mechanisms for enforcement, they will have to trust each other to protect habitats and funnel hundreds of billions of dollars over conservation. Alternative, non-paywalled sources: The Guardian and Associated Press.
Today's loss of biodiversity is being driven not by a space rock but by one species: humans. The loss of habitat, exploitation of species, climate change, pollution and destruction from invasive species moved by people between continents are all driving a decline in the variety of plants and animals. Nations now have the next eight years to hit their targets for protecting life. With few legal mechanisms for enforcement, they will have to trust each other to protect habitats and funnel hundreds of billions of dollars over conservation. Alternative, non-paywalled sources: The Guardian and Associated Press.
need nuclear power to do that! (Score:1)
need nuclear power to do that!
Re: need nuclear power to do that! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Policing the thousands of miles of national park/forest land is expensive. Relocating existing polluters adjacent to such lands is expensive. Regulating industries nearby to make sure they don't become polluters is expensive. And continuously fighting lawsuits from those who don't care about extinction events is expensive.
And that's before we talk about the fact that 30% of the USA is not national parklands. We're going to need to eminent domain a lot more land.
Legal shortcut (Score:2)
Make it illegal to build on or modify any land which is in the 30% protected zone, and then confiscate anything you find there. This way, no one will engage in any industrial activities on it at least because of the risk of losing their business. The occasional stills and poachers will still exist.
Re: (Score:3)
And that's before we talk about the fact that 30% of the USA is not national parklands. We're going to need to eminent domain a lot more land.
Who said anything about 30% of the US? This is 30% of the world, and they're generously including large swathes of uninhabited ocean as part of it. It sounds good because it's a big number but it means very little.
COP15's pledge is completely unrelated to Biden's "America the Beautiful" plan, which also doesn't involve federal ownership of land. Or even federal responsibility. They are billing it as a "locally led and voluntary effort" so they really have no stakes in it at all.
Re: need nuclear power to do that! (Score:2)
So countries that dont have stable governments, clean drinking water, and food stability will somehow be convinced to not develop their resources by colonialist nations who already have those things? Good luck!
Re: (Score:2)
And you need government subsidies to do nuclear power.
Include Coral Killing China and Brasil? (Score:1)
Re: Include Coral Killing China and Brasil? (Score:1)
"....fake news,fake news....! You made a bad deal..! I can get you a better deal..."
Per country target (Score:2)
is there a per country target, or does everybody just agree that the rest of the world should protect 30%?
And is there a target before the next election, or it's only for 2030 when most current political leaders are going to be long gone?
Re:Per country target (Score:5, Insightful)
It is all based on trusting each country to do what they can. The same countries which met 0 out of 20 of their biodiversity targets set in 2010. This appears to just be posturing by each country to look like they are doing something. The article even states there are little to no enforcement measures built into the agreement. As soon as some developer with a good lobby finds a way to make 1% more profit by destroying more rainforest, each country will conveniently forget about this agreement until they decide to play lip service again in a decade.
Until a large block of wealthy nations start sanctioning and/or isolating countries who don't adhere to similar agreements, very little of this posturing will matter. And we are far from anything like that happening. Especially since those wealthy countries are the world's greatest offenders when it comes to destroying natural habitats. Or at least they were; arguably many of them are already finished destroying most of the habitats near areas where humans want to live.
Re: (Score:2)
It is all based on trusting each country to do what they can
Does "what they can" add up to 30% of the planet, at least? Otherwise, I don't really see what they are pledging here.
Re:Who decided this really? The people? (Score:5, Informative)
Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong.
Half Earth (Score:3, Informative)
Humanity has been growing out of control for some time now and threatens the world with The Ecocide, a catastrophic loss of biodiversity which will result in adaptive generalists like squirrels, grackles, rats, crab grass, and shrubs taking over where once forests, plains, and marshes stood. "30 by 30" is a good first step toward a real solution like Half Earth [half-earthproject.org]:
Think of it like Kaczynski or Linkola but in a kinder, gentler form that forces the question back on us as to how we use our limited space and resources.
Re: Half Earth (Score:2)
In western countries there is an insatiable demand for McMansions, amazon warehouses, strip malls, and shopping centers. Pave the world for me they scream at their zoning boards, who are equally rapacious for tax revenue. The problem is not some nebulous demon of a developer itâ(TM)s right behind your own nose.
The voters/consumers are the problem (Score:1)
I do not disagree that demand is driving the issue; limiting land use forces hard decisions to be made there. However, the local authorities (incl. zoning boards) need tax revenue to pay for entitlements. The voters vote for those, and the consumers with money demand the McMansions, but around here the demand is driven by regular people needing regular (sub 2000sqft) housing, and 75% of these are non-Western in origin.
Re: (Score:2)
. Pave the world for me they scream at t
Pave the world. One world, one people, one big slab of asphalt.
Biden posturing - but won't achieve anything (Score:3)
The US system prevents its government from making promises like this. The fact that Biden's minions have signed up to this has minimal value unless Congress gets behing it. Sadly the special interests will prevent any such development - though how hard they will have to work to do so will be a function of which congress critters they nobble.
Touching but probably meaningless.
Promises, promises (Score:2)
But they never promised you a rose garden.
200 countries? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I think it's ok to say close to 200
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The statement says "close to 200 countries".
There are 195 countries; depending on your definition of "close to" it should be easy to get close to 200 countries, especially when you take into account that most of the countries in the world are too small for anyone to expect them to do anything about this. Countries on the other end of the size scale, like Russia, China and the US, can vote for this secure in the knowledge nobody can make them do anything they don't want to.
OK, but (Score:2)
Here in the USA there is basically one tiny little bit of old growth redwood forest that is "natural", everything else has been logged, or burned, or both. The native flora and fauna has been severely curtailed. Just leaving it alone now that it's been devastated is not even half-assed, it's quarter-assed at best.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha ha sure a troll.
Man, you guys work very hard to make sure the reality of this nonsense is deeply, deeply buried.
Outlaw cats as pets (Score:3)
Globally, domestic cats have caused the extinction of several mammals, reptiles, and at least 33 bird species.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov]
Except in New York City. They have a serious rat problem
Excellent! (Score:2)
I volunteer to set aside 30% of China.