Nations Reach Accord To Protect Marine Life on High Seas (apnews.com) 17
For the first time, United Nations members have agreed on a unified treaty to protect biodiversity in the high seas -- representing a turning point for vast stretches of the planet where conservation has previously been hampered by a confusing patchwork of laws. From a report: The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea came into force in 1994, before marine biodiversity was a well-established concept. The treaty agreement concluded two weeks of talks in New York. An updated framework to protect marine life in the regions outside national boundary waters, known as the high seas, had been in discussions for more than 20 years, but previous efforts to reach an agreement had repeatedly stalled. The unified agreement treaty, which applies to nearly half the planet's surface, was reached late Saturday. "We only really have two major global commons -- the atmosphere and the oceans," said Georgetown marine biologist Rebecca Helm. While the oceans may draw less attention, "protecting this half of earth's surface is absolutely critical to the health of our planet."
Good Luck (Score:4, Insightful)
With China
Wonder what the Useless Nations (Score:2)
Correction: Nations reachED an accord WEEKS AGO! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But it took this long to break through the MUCH MORE IMPORTANT articles on banks and such.
No, "nations" reached nothing. (Score:4, Interesting)
From TFA:
In short, what we have is a framework treaty which has been 'agreed to' by non-binding negotiators of a number of activist countries.
"Governments" have taken NO steps of meaning. None. Nada. Zip.
If historical precedent is a thing, the result will be EITHER:
- a meaningful treaty actually adopted by nobody of note, or
- a toothless, meaningless treaty that everyone will cheerfully sign up for because it has no worthwhile metrics nor costs to the signors.
We need to stop pretending the Emperor has clothes, whether it's meaningless accords in Paris that nobody is going to meet anyway, or desperate international hand-wringing that amounts to nothing real.
Why do we keep celebrating nothing as if it's something?
Re: (Score:3)
Smoke and mirrors are important when placating the plebes who have been kept on the verge of rabble-rousing with the constant stream of "shocking" headlines about climate change that have been streamed into our brains over the last sixty years or so. The people capable of making the big changes we keep having preached at us refuse to do anything, but they absolutely approve of these toothless "accords" and "measures" and "agreements" because it gives the illusion the ruling classes care, while allowing them
Re: (Score:2)
It just gives third-world countries yet another rolled up paper with which to brow-beat first-world countries into coughing up more money. Meanwhile, the first-world governments won't care if they are getting screwed because they just pass the expense on to the citizenry in the form of regulatory fees.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do we keep celebrating nothing as if it's something?
Because getting a 167 nations who all have different politics, different incentives and different opinions to agree about anything at all is something, especially if it's something actually good like this.
Yes it's hard to get anything with actual teeth through the UN, that is by it's design because no nation is going to give the UN any type of actual binding authority over them so this is where we are at. I doubt anyone here is in favor of giving the UN more authority?
Like the actual article says this is a
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Because getting a 167 nations who all have different politics, different incentives and different opinions to agree about anything at all is something, especially if it's something actually good like this.
Not really. Take a look at some of the names of the nations that signed the treaty. I'm willing to be 150 of those nations signing, it wouldn't have mattered if they signed or not. It is easy to get nations to sign a treaty that won't matter to them.
It's enforcing the treaty that matters. Look a the whales. How many nations hunted whales to the brink of extinction? Today, thanks to treaties no nations hunt whales.
Except that isn't true is it? I can think of two nations off hand that still hav
Re: (Score:2)
Did i not say that by it's nature anything coming out of the UN will lack enforcement? I acknowledged that, repeating it doesn't make it anymore of a point.
However it stands that 167 nations in fact did agree to this in 1994 and are agreeing to updates to it now. Hopefully it can lead to something stronger between nation blocs. That fact does not make this a bad thing. In fact in almost any way this is a good thing, it's a matter of to what degree it is a good thing.
You are playing a game where you are f
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why do we keep celebrating nothing as if it's something?
Because while this may not be the something you and I are looking for -- a treaty that has wide enough ratification to go into effect and actually make a difference -- it also isn't nothing. It is one of the biggest and hardest steps on the way to what we actually want. And it's the step where there's no longer a question that we get a treaty.
These things don't happen quickly, Environmental NGOs interested in deep-sea conservation -- Greenpeace, WWF, Pew Charitable Trusts and many more -- had been making
Link to full text: English, Preliminary, 54 pages (Score:2)
Fuck it! SMOD! Take us away! (Score:1)
At this point, I'm just ready for the Sweet Meteor Of Death.
Laws, Hell! (Score:2)
They should start concentrating on enforcement! I just watched a number of videos about divers and others saving whales from net entanglements. What's more obvious than a fishing boat deploying or gathering back in a probably illegal drift net?