[HN Gopher] Nations reach accord to protect marine life on high ...
___________________________________________________________________
Nations reach accord to protect marine life on high seas
Author : acdanger
Score : 151 points
Date : 2023-03-19 20:07 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (apnews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (apnews.com)
| O__________O wrote:
| Sorry, but unless there's an actual link to the agreement, list
| of countries bound to it, and significant meaningful timely means
| of enforcement-- this is meaningless.
|
| As far as I'm concerned, all harvesting or harming of wildlife
| sea or otherwise needs to stop. If a country or individual
| refuses to agree, should either be a life sentence or act of war.
| People are unable to handle any rule based systems other than
| black and white, zero impact.
|
| China, US, Japan, etc - regardless of what they say, will never
| stop until sea, land, and air no longer has wildlife.
| Avicebron wrote:
| That's one way to speedrun war with all of asia simultaneously
| O__________O wrote:
| War is irrelevant. No country is going to agree to cease
| impacting, harvesting, etc wildlife. It's to hard to monitor,
| enforce, predict, etc wildlife harvesting.
|
| I am not saying humanity needs to protect wildlife because it
| is the "nice thing" to do, saying it because I sincerely
| believe Earth and humanity need's wildlife to have a
| habitable planet; anyone is welcome to feel free to explain
| how this is wrong.
| PradeetPatel wrote:
| The cynic in me says that long term habitability of the
| planet have very little impact on the quarterly revenue of
| most corporations.
|
| If business school taught me anything, is that the only
| revenue that matters to execs is the quarterly one.
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| Although a step in the right direction, without restrictions on
| commercial fishing it feels like lip service.
| melling wrote:
| https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/09/26/world/asia/ch...
|
| "With its own coastal waters depleted, China has built a global
| fishing operation unmatched by any other country."
| dirtyid wrote:
| >unmatched by any other country
|
| The worlds largest country with largest ship construction
| capability has the biggest fleet.
|
| PRC distant fleet _underfishes_ per capita, especially
| relative to JP (3X more than PRC), SKR & ES (7x), TW (30x ~).
| All with their own subsidies and suspicious behaviours in
| others EEZs. At end of day, PRC with 1/5 of world population
| and relatively small EEZ is entitled to fish in international
| waters. Like emissions, it's the per capita that matters.
|
| Entire PRC overfishing propaganda is US driven narrative to
| forward deploy coast guards against PRC interests. There's a
| reason why these articles never headlines with US east asian
| partners being significantly worst overfishers. In the
| meantime, no reason PRC fishermen or consumers should take a
| hit until others cut down to PRC levels.
| Avicebron wrote:
| Per capita doesn't matter in this context, because the
| earth isn't infinitely expanding resource wise, it's the
| net removed at any given time that matters.
| [deleted]
| zabzonk wrote:
| > The question now is how well the ambitious treaty will be
| implemented.
|
| and enforced? seens pretty worthless to me, though the intent is
| good.
| mb7733 wrote:
| Article is too light on details to discuss much but for anyone
| interested in this issue I highly recommend the podcast "The
| Outlaw Ocean". While it's not solely focused on ecological
| issues, the general theme is that enforcement of any laws or
| treaties in international waters is very difficult. Out of 7
| episodes at least 2 or 3 are focused on illegal fishing.
| impalallama wrote:
| Hopefully more news is forthcoming as to whats in the treaty and
| how it might be enforced. The article is basically just a press
| release saying it happened.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| > The question now is how well the ambitious treaty will be
| implemented.
|
| Third paragraph from the end? Talk about a buried lede.
|
| This feels very similar to the Paris Climate Agreement. That is,
| lots of talk. Lots of agreement. But nothing binding. More faux
| progress.
|
| Sad to say, typical.
| logicalmonster wrote:
| What exactly is the nature of this agreement? This article didn't
| really go into anything resembling detail.
|
| Offhand, I'd love to be proven wrong (because this is an
| environmental issue that IMO is far more important and
| demonstrably real than the other thing) but I cannot imagine that
| certain countries (who cannot be named) would ever agree to a
| genuine agreement in this space.
| klyrs wrote:
| Precious few details here. Great news, diplomats made an
| agreement! If this is like every other treaty I've prematurely
| gotten excited about, those diplomats don't have legislative
| authority, and each needs to return home to get the treaties
| ratified by their respective legislatures. And after that, it's
| up to each member nation to pass and enforce legislation to back
| that up. And in this case that _does_ mean fighting pirates on
| the high seas. In 20 years, we 'll look back and see that little,
| no, or most likely, negative progress has been made. But hey, you
| can ask chatgpt how it feels today. Sigh.
| OtomotO wrote:
| Awesome! Another accord that can be ignored just like all the
| others that came before!
|
| I love bureaucracy and diplomacy... They make us look so
| productive while once in a while real change comes along.
|
| Forgive my pessimism, but I've seen too many international
| accords that haven't been worth the paper they were printed on
| (with loads of media coverage and fanfare) during my lifetime.
| KarlKemp wrote:
| That's just mindless contrarianism. There are plenty of
| successes of international cooperation. Of the top of my head:
| protection of the arctic and Antarctic, restrictions in the
| trade of ivory, tropical woods, big-game hunting (and trophies)
| etc. Lots of fishery agreements, nuclear testing ban, standards
| for offshore oil drilling, double-hull tankers etc.
|
| That's just the tip of the iceberg and only wrt the
| environment. EU and NAFTA are also international agreements
| that have teeth, as is the Berne convention on copyright (even
| if you don't like it). Unicode is the UN in action as is the
| boat that will pick you up if you happen to get stranded on a
| deserted island (and have the necessary, and standardized,
| beacon). If you're a Mongolian in a Mexican jail or a Mexican
| in a Mongolian jail, your embassy will be informed and allowed
| to render legal support, thanks to an international agreement
| to that effect. If you're being subjected to cluster munitions,
| your foe is one of the few people on earth that wouldn't enjoy
| a trip to the Netherlands. If you find yourself being
| extradited to The Hague, the plane you're traveling on will
| conform to internationally agreed safety standards.
| weq wrote:
| The phenom is called "Paper Parks", Costa Rica for instance
| leads the world in eco washing / fisheries corruption.
|
| https://octogroup.org/news/paper-parks-why-they-happen-
| and-w...
|
| https://www.cremacr.org/en/new-report-finds-costa-rica-is-
| fa...
| badrabbit wrote:
| Would you instead favor starting a war over this? Because this
| is reality, accords and treaties are tools of diplomacy and
| they are binding, you can sue other nations or implement other
| measures against them as a collective of signatories where
| without the accord you would act unilaterally and without
| cause.
|
| I think you, like many, mistakenly assume that there is some
| law or authority over all nations.
| exq wrote:
| Montreal Protocol worked.
| mrangle wrote:
| The Montreal Protocol didn't require military enforcement.
| This will. And this is its significance.
| voisin wrote:
| Anything else since 1987?
| ar9av wrote:
| All the billions of lobsters dead and mass die off of species
| around the world the next few years as the planet heats up within
| the next 7 years is breathtaking.
|
| Atlantic Ocean current is struggling to stay currenting. Honestly
| looks like the tides around the world will change from the warmer
| climates .. and now to tack onto this methane is starting to
| creep up as the #1 reason of planetary changes due to ice melting
| around the globe.. The world is in a scary estate over the next
| few years as we make the changes to renewable energy resources.
| Some are to ignorant to change until we have mass starvation
| periods in the next few years. Than what?
| abraae wrote:
| > Than what?
|
| Optimistic view: the populace wakes the fuck up and demands
| that the madness stops, and we introduce carbon taxes.
|
| Pessimistic view: the populace decides that any cut to their
| consumption and lifestyle is unacceptable and gets behind geo
| engineering in a big way. Next thing we are pumping new stuff
| into the atmosphere at one place to shield us from the sun,
| while at the same time pumping in ever increasing amouts of
| methane and CO2 thanks to moral hazard.
|
| Left field view: A nuclear war wipes out a large part of the
| population, and the planet breathes a sight of relief.
| imiric wrote:
| Exactly. Protecting the largest animals won't matter in a few
| years when all the corals and microfauna disappear due to ocean
| warming, triggering devastating chain effects in all
| ecosystems.
|
| I'm not sure if I've watched too many science documentaries,
| but the future looks grim from any standpoint. Even if this
| accord is upheld and protects the largest species, I'm afraid
| it's too little, too late to stop the environmental
| catastrophe.
|
| The only thing that might slow things down is if we very
| aggressively stop burning fossil fuels. This is a political and
| economic problem that everyone needs to agree on, yet we can't
| even stop killing each other, so I'm not that hopeful.
| bombolo wrote:
| Will japan fish less? If not, useless.
| darth_avocado wrote:
| We don't need an international accord, we need the top 10
| countries to stop pillaging the international waters for their
| consumption. The top 10, mostly Asian countries consume more
| seafood than the next 50. And these countries are also the ones
| that are most likely to fish in the most damaging way possible
| with no sustainability in mind.
| hristov wrote:
| Uhh that's why we need an international accord.
| PradeetPatel wrote:
| That, lets not underestimate the necessity for education and
| awareness.
|
| There is only one ocean on planet earth and we all need to do
| our part to protect its ecosystem.
| suddenclarity wrote:
| Did a quick Google search and found this:
|
| > The treaty does not regulate fishing on the high seas, which is
| managed by other international organizations.
|
| This treaty seems to more about plastic and climate.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-19 23:00 UTC)