[HN Gopher] 14 nations commit to protect oceans
___________________________________________________________________
14 nations commit to protect oceans
Author : hassanahmad
Score : 241 points
Date : 2020-12-07 18:34 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nationalgeographic.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nationalgeographic.co.uk)
| jimmaswell wrote:
| Wait, I thought banning convenient shopping bags and drinking
| utensils was supposed to fix everything.
| CapitalistCartr wrote:
| These are _not_ the "key" nations. Those are USA, China, India,
| Japan, EU, Britain. Until they get on board, it's still too
| little (and probably too late).
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| When it comes to the oceans, add France to the list. Due to
| their island holdings around the globe, they have the world's
| largest maritime exclusive economic zone, covering 8% of the
| surface of the Earth.
| pferdone wrote:
| You may have missed that he mentioned the whole EU :)
| kergonath wrote:
| The EU is not a nation, and foreign policy is a bit of
| sovereignty several member states really do not want to
| give up. And France perhaps more than most.
| notahacker wrote:
| Fisheries policy, on the other hand, very much is in the
| remit of the EU.
| kergonath wrote:
| Right, but it depends where. The EU does not say much
| about how France runs most of its overseas territories,
| including French Polynesia and New Caledonia. Less than
| 10% of France's surface area (land+sea) is actually in
| Europe.
| [deleted]
| dundarious wrote:
| > The 14 members are Australia, Canada, Chile, Ghana,
| Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Namibia, Norway, Portugal, and
| the island nations of Fiji, Jamaica, and Palau.
|
| So at least Japan is on board.
| aplummer wrote:
| Australia is comfortable doing their per capita bit plus
| extra destroying arguably one of the most valuable biological
| assets in the world (the Great Barrier Reef), so it's kind of
| sad to see the hypocrisy.
| lhorie wrote:
| Well, Japan is one of them.
|
| > The group of 14 looks nothing like the usual assemblage of
| international leaders recruited for global initiatives. France,
| with its vast array of overseas territories that gives it one
| of the planet's largest ocean footprints, was not invited. Nor
| were the powerhouse players of Russia, China, or the United
| States.
|
| > "Negotiation with that category of country isn't all that
| easy," says Vidar Helgesen, Norway's former Minister of Climate
| and Environment and the driving force behind the project. "We
| decided to get a group where high politics wouldn't get in the
| way and we could be focused on the task."
|
| > The idea, Helgesen says, was to gather a coalition of the
| willing--a like-minded group of countries with the ocean deeply
| embedded in their culture and history--to conduct discussions
| that would be underpinned by science.
|
| I think this looks like a good move. IMHO, a big problem with
| environmental challenges is this idea that a solution has to be
| some all-or-nothing affair, and because of the perceived
| insurmountability, nothing gets done politically. Getting a
| group of nations to do something because they _need_ to seems
| like a good fire under people's asses to get the ball moving.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| It might also serve as a proof of concept that makes it
| easier for larger countries to sign on.
| SquareWheel wrote:
| They address this in the article. Smaller nations were chosen
| to focus on the issue at hand, and not to get caught up in
| politics.
| comeondude wrote:
| Can't build a better future with cynicism.
| KiranRao0 wrote:
| Can't built a better future with blind optimism either
| eloff wrote:
| I think you can put together a list of counter examples
| pretty easily. Blind optimism is perfectly fine for making
| progress, in the cases where the action taken turns out to
| work.
|
| Plenty of people started businesses on what may be termed
| blind optimism and succeeded.
|
| I think it even helps a little to underestimate the
| obstacles in innovation - otherwise one might not attempt
| it in the first place. But just a little, because diverging
| too far from reality brings its own problems.
|
| Optimism is essential to progress.
| macg333 wrote:
| But we can all build a better future together. :)
| aerovistae wrote:
| Disagree! This is a smart way to go about this. As they say in
| the article, "Negotiation with that category of country isn't
| all that easy," whereas they can form effective policies in
| their absence and then gain momentum to pressure others to
| join.
| ClosedPistachio wrote:
| >The 14 members are Australia, Canada, Chile, Ghana, Indonesia,
| Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Namibia, Norway, Portugal, and the island
| nations of Fiji, Jamaica, and Palau.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| Does this mean that Japan will now stop their "research" whale
| hunts?
|
| If it doesn't, I am worried about how much this commitment is
| real.
| qart wrote:
| Why single out Japan? Canada, Greenland, Faroe Islands, and
| Norway all exceed it. Canada and Norway are signatories of
| this new commitment.
|
| Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling#Whaling_catches
| _by_loc...
| throw0101a wrote:
| The only people who do whaling in Canada are the First
| Nations, and they do it in Canada's territorial waters:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Canada
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_whaling
|
| They generally eat it, make art, and perhaps use parts for
| traditional clothing.
|
| Japan on the other hand (a) has no Indigenous peoples
| following their traditional ways, (b) often violates the
| waters of other countries, and (c) has no basis for
| scientific inquiry (as ruled by the ICJ):
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Japan
|
| You don't see Intuit fisherman in the Southern Ocean off
| the coast Antarctic, but you do see Japanese fishing boats.
| [deleted]
| jbay808 wrote:
| Some Japanese people I speak with who work in the marine
| industry believe that whales are a major threat to fish
| stocks and are gobbling up all the fish so that not enough is
| left for humans.
|
| I don't believe that's true and make an effort to persuade
| them otherwise. But at the very least I'm sure that many
| Japanese people (based on what they have been taught)
| earnestly do not see an incongruity between whaling and a
| desire to protect the oceans.
| Thlom wrote:
| What is the problem with whaling if done in a sustainable
| way?
| fennecfoxen wrote:
| Well, what's the problem with eating, say, gorillas, if
| done in a sustainable way?
|
| You don't need to be a card-carrying PETA vegan to find it
| quite off-putting to eat self-aware social animals with
| some of the world's largest brains.
| gwbas1c wrote:
| Is it sustainable or "sustainable?" (As in, not really
| sustainable, but spun so people think it's sustainable?)
| Thlom wrote:
| At current catch rates it's very sustainable.
| valarauko wrote:
| Japan has resumed commercial whaling since July 2019
|
| https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/02/asia/japan-first-whale-
| catch-...
| ClosedPistachio wrote:
| Also from TFA:
|
| > Combined, they represent 40 percent of the world's
| coastlines, 30 percent of the offshore exclusive economic
| zones, 20 percent of the world's fisheries, and 20 percent of
| the world's shipping fleet.
| hobofan wrote:
| > 40 percent of the world's coastlines
|
| At what resolution?
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Presumably it's 40% at any resolution. Specifically I would
| think any two coastlines would increase proportionately for
| a fixed increase in resolution.
| [deleted]
| riffraff wrote:
| I doubt this matters, but it seems different kind of
| coastlines would have different length at different
| resolution. i.e. the presence of fjords compared to long
| sandy beaches would produce diverging measures.
|
| Or, if rivers have large deltas or estuaries you could
| get very different measures.
| hobofan wrote:
| Yup, see this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of
| _countries_by_length_of...
|
| In the list of the article here, Norway in particular
| tipped me off, as it's incredibly jagged coastline can be
| lead to great resolution-dependent differences.
| eslaught wrote:
| Ok, but real-world coastlines are not true fractals. I
| assume that the numbers do converge as resolution
| increases.
| pstuart wrote:
| I imagine the US will come on board some time after January 20.
| liminal wrote:
| I like this approach of coalitions of the willing. If the willing
| can gain critical mass they can hopefully apply enough trade
| pressure/incentives for the unwilling to join too. These sorts of
| efforts seem to need momentum. Everything seems impossible until
| it's done.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Nations can only control their sovereign seas. The majority of
| the world oceans are unpoliced. And honestly, I don't see why I,
| as a developing nation, shouldn't overfish the seas. The
| developed nations (excluding perhaps the US for being so young)
| are where they are because they chopped their forests, killed
| their wildlife, and burned what else they could find.
|
| England isn't going to reforest. Germany isn't going to
| reintroduce all the wildlife they hunted. And the peoples of
| neither nation have paid reparations to the Earth (for good
| reason, they can't afford to). If I were running China, the right
| thing for me to do is to strip the Earth dry, and then a century
| later when I'm rich demand that "All nations must do their part".
|
| After all, it's not like anyone will make me pay for everything
| that happened a century ago. So you'll either have to make me not
| do this or you're going to have to suck it up. China's navy
| doesn't have the ability to protect her shipping fleets so that's
| her problem.
| yongjik wrote:
| That's like saying "As a developing nation, I don't see why I
| should mandate fire code. Developed nations are where they are
| because workers burnt to death in gruesome preventable
| disasters."
|
| And, mind you, in any developing nation, there _will_ be people
| who raise these rhetorics and try to make it an issue of
| national pride or something. Because _these people_ have much
| to gain by keeping workers in dangerous buildings, bulldozing
| national forests, or depleting fisheries.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Sure. If I were running a developing nation I would do
| precisely those things: burn my people in a furnace that
| accelerates overall development. Every single success story
| of the last century has taken this strategy. Because it turns
| out that the best way to make life better for future citizens
| is to throw some smaller number of present citizens in the
| furnace.
|
| China didn't raise 400 million out of poverty by accident.
| Lives were paid. Intentionally.
| triceratops wrote:
| > I don't see why I, as a developing nation, shouldn't overfish
| the seas.
|
| Developed nations should pay them not to.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Economically, I agree that this is how the resources should
| flow. Practically, I suspect there is an enforcement problem.
| maxerickson wrote:
| Most of the forest in the US has been cut at least once.
|
| We also reduced the Bison population from tens of millions down
| to ~150,000.
|
| So no different really.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Haha, okay, there we go then.
|
| Perhaps the best way for us to preserve land for trees in
| America is to buy Weyerhaeuser stock.
| markdown wrote:
| Australia, the country destroying its own Great Barrier Reef on
| the altar of resource extraction (coal, etc), is promising to
| protect oceans? This commitment isn't worth the paper it's
| written on.
| FirstLvR wrote:
| as a Chilean, I'm a bit sceptical
| arminiusreturns wrote:
| So did Ghislaine Maxwell...
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/14/style/ghislaine-maxwell-t...
|
| https://www.insider.com/ghislaine-maxwells-mysterious-ocean-...
|
| https://newspunch.com/jeffrey-epstein-ghislaine-maxwells-com...
| ouid wrote:
| I hear that hitler opposed blowing up the entire earth.
| frEdmbx wrote:
| I'm still surprised the "99%" haven't made a pact to all use a
| cryptocurrency. I can understand why the 5 wealthiest nations
| that all want to be the one with a world reserve fiat global
| enslavement system would oppose such a thing.. but the bottom 190
| nations with no chance of theirs being the world reserve currency
| should all get together and agree to use, contribute to, and
| defend Bitcoin. These allied nations could agree to contribute at
| least some minimum, and not exceed 25% of the mining power, with
| each nation limited to 1/195th of that total. Any attempt at
| corrupting should be seen as a crime, and act of war, against
| humanity.
| sweetlucipher wrote:
| Just as Japan is about to dump a million ton (or more?) of
| radioactive water (from Fukushima) into the ocean.
| kvgr wrote:
| It is gonna dillute so much it will not be a problem at all...
| xwdv wrote:
| Radioactivity isn't really a big deal for animals and non-
| sentients. It mostly prevents humans from entering certain
| areas, which in this case maybe it's good that humans will
| avoid them so animals could thrive there.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| What about caught radioactive fish that humans will eat?
| NullPrefix wrote:
| Once again, a problem for humans which means animals
| eventually could thrive
| [deleted]
| ironmagma wrote:
| We aren't the only animals that eat fish.
| xwdv wrote:
| It's not okay to just kill and eat fish.
| yostrovs wrote:
| You tell that to the fish.
| jbay808 wrote:
| I'd be more worried about the mercury that's already there
| guscost wrote:
| "Radioactive water" in this context means "normal water with
| trace amounts of tritium, which emits radiation that is less
| harmful than sunlight".
| mrlala wrote:
| A million tons doesn't even sound like that much?
|
| 1 million metric tons = 1 million cubic meters. That's only a
| 100m cube of water..
| Apes wrote:
| Don't panic! Don't worry! China is more than willing to pick up
| the ocean destroying slack from these 14 nations! They're already
| doing around 80% of the damage, how could they not just do a bit
| more?
| okButPhysics9 wrote:
| Meanwhile the American military burns up the vast majority of
| fossil fuels.
|
| So you know let's make sure China is singled out for being
| utter shit.
|
| "There's a warning sign on the road ahead, a lotta people
| saying we'd be better off dead. Don't feel like satan, but I am
| to them. So I try to forget it any way I can."
|
| Nation state semantics will never paper over the fact humans
| everywhere are doing this.
|
| Grow up, reality.
| Darmody wrote:
| It's crazy how activists never point at the ones who do the
| most damage.
| [deleted]
| PradeetPatel wrote:
| Can finger pointing really solve anything though?
|
| Starting a wider conversation and raising awareness will
| probably help a lot more in the long run.
| wincy wrote:
| I don't know what a China embargo would look like, but I know
| that any first world government who tried it would find
| themselves promptly removed from power and a newer Chinese
| friendly government installed amongst rabid cries for new
| iPhones and gadgets.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Embargoes aren't used much anymore. Countries use tariffs.
| Which the US has shown are actually quite effective against
| China, because China has a legitimate fear of competitors
| springing up elsewhere since once they exist they may
| continue to exist even after the tariffs are gone.
|
| So they respond by devaluing their currency to remain
| competitive even against the tariffs, which is equivalent
| to paying the tariffs rather than passing the cost on to
| the customers. But then your own citizens don't feel the
| pinch from the tariffs and you can maintain them
| indefinitely, or even increase them, until you get what
| you're asking for.
|
| That assumes you're a large enough player to get them to
| respond that way, but smaller players can form coalitions.
| zests wrote:
| "China embargo" could be replaced with many other terms.
| Here's another to try on for size:
|
| > I don't know what a Global Warming Plan would look like,
| but I know that any first world government who tried it
| would find themselves promptly removed from power and a
| newer consumer/polluter friendly government installed
| amongst rabid cries for new iPhones and maintaining current
| niceties of life.
| cmdshiftf4 wrote:
| >I don't know what a China embargo would look like, but I
| know that any first world government who tried it would
| find themselves promptly removed from power and a newer
| Chinese friendly government installed amongst rabid cries
| for new iPhones and gadgets.
|
| Bingo.
|
| I mean, right this minute we're all ignoring a literal
| concentration camp in China in the name of not upsetting
| our supply of cheap gadgets. Good luck getting support over
| something less tangible.
| Kluny wrote:
| China is indeed doing most of the damage, but you may not
| realize that they're actually aware of it and they do care.
| China is also doing the most research into recycling and
| sustainability and making the most progress. It's a big
| country, a lot of things can happen all at once.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| China cares about recycling and sustainability of their own
| resources.
|
| There's very little evidence they care that their fishing
| fleets are destroying fish stocks halfway across the world.
| Kharvok wrote:
| Posturing. Almost all of the plastic pollution in the ocean comes
| out of 5 river systems in Asia
| freewilly1040 wrote:
| A great recent book that touches on the topic of overfishing and
| ecological damage to the oceans is: The Outlaw Ocean: Journeys
| Across the Last Untamed Frontier by Ian Urbina.
| sjs382 wrote:
| Since it's buried a little:
|
| > The 14 members are Australia, Canada, Chile, Ghana, Indonesia,
| Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Namibia, Norway, Portugal, and the island
| nations of Fiji, Jamaica, and Palau.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| I don't see how any commitment to protect the oceans can be taken
| seriously without China committing to it. See this prior comment
| I made in a different discussion, concerning China's distant
| fishing fleet, which is ravaging ocean environments worldwide:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25120998
| aledalgrande wrote:
| "not the usual gang of suspects" ehr, Canada is there ;)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-12-07 23:00 UTC)