More Than Half of Countries Are Ignoring Biodiversity Pledges 17
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 (Score:1)
As usual. Money talks, bullshit walks.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, duh (Score:3)
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 of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, are effectively conserved and managed through ecologically representative, well-connected and equitably governed systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, recognizing indigenous and traditional territories where applicable, and integrated into wider landscapes, seascapes and the ocean, while ensuring that any sustainable use, where appropriate in such areas, is fully consistent with conservation outcomes, recognizing and respecting the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, including over their traditional territories."
irrelevant number (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
"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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Any countries that want to do something good should do it solely of their own accord. Expecting everyone else to be able or willing to jump on board with a p
Re: (Score:2)
Compare that to China or USA where we control a huge amount of land and it may be possible to do that 30%.
I don't think size is really relevant. Bigger countries have more land, which means 30% of that land is a much, much larger amount. 30% of the US or China is a very large amount of land.
What really makes it easy or hard is how much of their land is currently in use. Regardless of size, if a country has lots of land that is already unused, it's easy for them to block it off for biodiversity preservation. If they don't have a lot of unused land, it's hard. Further, ideally you should try to get 30% of
US situation (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 undeveloped beaches because it can trade west texas scrub for private holdings in the hurricane zone.
To be clear, the 13% figure is protected land, not government land. The federal government owns about 30% of US land. 13% is slightly under half of that, so your numbers sound about right. There is also some land protected by states.
Re: (Score:2)
People are a plague. (Score:2)
After we have consumed everything consumable and polluted the planet we too will pass into history.
I saw that headline and almost got excited (Score:1)
Slush funds are drying up so . . . (Score:2)
. . . expect more foot dragging. For example, essentially brand new NGO “Power Forward Communities” had almost no employees, a board of democrat party appointed luminaries, a “climate justice” mandate, and two billion dollars of the wildly misnamed “Inflation Reduction Act” funding promised to it. They at least planned to put out a “climate justice plan” in addition to paying their newly installed leadership nice salaries and budgeting nice travel budget perks