More Than Half of Countries Are Ignoring Biodiversity Pledges

More than half the world's countries have no plans to protect 30% of land and sea for nature, despite committing to a global agreement to do so less than three years ago, new analysis shows. From a report: In late 2022, nearly every country signed a once-in-a-decade UN deal to halt the destruction of Earth's ecosystems. It included a headline target to protect nearly a third of the planet for biodiversity by the end of the decade -- a goal known as "30 by 30." But as country leaders gather in Rome to conclude Cop16 negotiations to save nature, analysis of countries' plans by Carbon Brief and the Guardian found that many countries are will fall short. More than half are either pledging to protect less than 30% of their territory or are not setting a numerical target.

Watch what I do, don't listen to what I say

[registrations_suck]

As usual. Money talks, bullshit walks.

Re:

[flyingfsck]

Ayup, meanwhile, since Russia remodeled most of the surface of Ukraine, the USA is trying to protect 100% of Ukraine below ground level.

Well, duh

[magzteel]

This is another one of those stupid virtue-signaling positions that nobody seriously commit to. Oh sure, we'll agree it's a wonderful idea and then go out for some steak, wine, and escorts. But that's where it ends, until the next time we get together for some more of that after-conference entertainment we are really there for.

"Target 3: Conserve 30% of Land, Waters and Seas

Ensure and enable that by 2030 at least 30 per cent of terrestrial, inland water, and of coastal and marine areas, especially areas

irrelevant number

[groobly]

The *number* of countries is totally irrelevant. What's relevant is the land area, maybe weighted by significance of habitat.

Why is this a surprise?

[sarren1901]

No two countries are equal. Some countries have more land per capita then others. Do you expect an island nation the size of New Jersey to re-wild or otherwise not develop that 30% of their land? Compare that to China or USA where we control a huge amount of land and it may be possible to do that 30%.

The poorer a country the more likely they will want to exploit their natural resources to improve the lives of their citizens as well. It's easier for a service economy to set aside 30% of their land then a maj

Re:

[Chris Mattern]

"Do you expect an island nation the size of New Jersey to re-wild or otherwise not develop that 30% of their land?"

I accept that some nations may find utterly impractical to adhere to this pledge.

What I *expect* is that nations that do not have the ability to fulfill the pledge not make it in the first place.

Re:

[flyingfsck]

Canada, Russia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, to name a few, easily meet those targets without doing anything.

US situation

[swillden]

The US currently protects 13% of its land and 26% of its marine area, so... pretty close on the marine area but quite far from the land area. It seems unlikely that the current administration will do anything to increase either of those numbers and could well decrease one or both.

Re:

[nevermindme]

Stats sound off, About half of federal land is off limits to any practical development, add another 30% that cattle and lumberjacks providing revenue and fire roads. 20% is open for mineral exploration and very heavy usage by ag, tourism and such. States in the east hold what they hold and only figure good trades for mineral exploitation. Their a few states in the west with considerable holding typically held in legal limbo for decades, and then there is texas. Texas has wonderful stretches of un

Re:

[sinkskinkshrieks]

Which is surprising given that 5% of all American land goes to growing cow corn, mostly concentrated in Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana.

People are a plague.

[fredrated]

After we have consumed everything consumable and polluted the planet we too will pass into history.