16 ms·
Nations reach accord to protect marine life on high seas
- vipvipv 4y agoI think this is a breakthrough, of sorts, to begin. What will beccomeOFit is a bunch of nations working together to protect a valuable resource we have, our data oCEanss! :) Prolly would've preferRed if it happened sooner but it is NOww heppenINg. I AM so glad!:):)
- NegativeLatency 4y agoAlthough a step in the right direction, without restrictions on commercial fishing it feels like lip service.
- melling 4y agohttps://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/09/26/world/asia/china-fishing-south-america.html 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.”
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- dirtyid 4y ago>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 4y agoPer 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.
- dirtyid 4y agoThe enviroment and biosphere will recover / regenerate in some form even if humans destroy everything and drive themselves to extinction. Sustainablity is an anthropocene problem, and just like climate, per capita is the only thing that matters for geopolitics if the world wants to reach an accord. No party is going to accede to less share of global commons, how humans share global resource stocks is downstream of politics.
- splistud 4y ago[dead]
- zabzonk 4y ago> The question now is how well the ambitious treaty will be implemented. and enforced? seens pretty worthless to me, though the intent is good.
- logicalmonster 4y agoWhat 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.
- suddenclarity 4y agoDid 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.
- ethbr0 4y agoI am not an international diplomat, but my understanding is that international treaties on large issues are usually divided into two types: frameworks and protocols. Frameworks essentially state "This is something we all want, and here are the boundaries of what we're agreeing to talk about." Protocols build within existing frameworks and state "We agree to do these specific things in pursuit of the framework's bigger goal." Rationale presumably being that it's easier to get a bunch of diplomats to agree on general goodness, and then everyone has already bought in when it comes time for the more difficult concrete negotiations. This is a framework stating something like "Protecting marine life is good."
- darth_avocado 4y agoWe 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 4y agoUhh that's why we need an international accord.
- PradeetPatel 4y agoThat, 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.
- LeoPanthera 4y ago> We don’t need an international accord, we need the top 10 countries to stop pillaging the international waters for their consumption. What do you think an international accord is?
- lambdasquirrel 4y agoYeah all the countries with major fishing fleets need to agree. Otherwise you’re just outsourcing the fishing.
- sigzero 4y agoA quick look shows those (mostly Asian countries) are not part of the coalition.
- O__________O 4y ago>> mostly Asian countries consume more seafood than the next 50. This is false. Per capita, aside from Africa and South America, who both eat roughly half the fish per person as the rest, majority of world per person eats same amount of fish. Sure, Asian has more people, but do you really think telling the majority of people they need to eat less fish while everyone else is not told that is going to go over well? Source: - https://goodseedventures.com/worldwide-food-consumption-per-capita-2/ https://goodseedventures.com/worldwide-food-consumption-per-...
- OtomotO 4y agoAwesome! 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.
- exq 4y agoMontreal Protocol worked.
- voisin 4y agoAnything else since 1987?
- ethbr0 4y agoVarious protocols under CLRTAP. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Long-Range_Transboundary_Air_Pollution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Long-Range_Tra... Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (the basis for modern high seas piracy law) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_for_the_Suppression_of_Unlawful_Acts_against_the_Safety_of_Maritime_Navigation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_for_the_Suppressi... Wellington Convention (prohibition on long drift net fishing in the Pacific) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellington_Convention https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellington_Convention 1990 Chemical Weapons Accord (bilateral between US and Russia) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_Chemical_Weapons_Accord https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_Chemical_Weapons_Accord UNFCCC (basis of UN climate negotiations) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Con... Convention on Biological Diversity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Biological_Diversity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Biological_Div... Chemical Weapons Convention https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention Aarhus Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aarhus_Protocol_on_Persistent_Organic_Pollutants https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aarhus_Protocol_on_Persisten... Kyoto Protocol https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (establishes the ICC) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute ... and then everything after 2000 too. I know it's en vogue on HN to bash the UN/international diplomacy as useless, but it's illogical to expect a lot of smart folks, working hard for enough time, not to produce useful things. And there's a lot of tragedy-of-the-commons problems which the UN is an excellent forum to solve.
- ar9av 4y agoAll 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?
- beachy 4y ago> 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 4y agoExactly. 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.
- O__________O 4y agoSorry, 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 4y agoThat's one way to speedrun war with all of asia simultaneously
- O__________O 4y agoWar 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 4y agoThe 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.
- O__________O 4y agoCorporations and ultra wealthy clearly have an over sized impact and influence on the world, but — when it comes to a topic like this, it’s 8 billion people saying, yummie, yummie, F the world; or the people not saying “yummie, yummie” refusing to enforce not impacting wildlife on those who clearly don’t care.
- impalallama 4y agoHopefully 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 4y ago> 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.
- 1970-01-01 4y agoThoughts and prayers for fish.
- klyrs 4y agoPrecious 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.
- bombolo 4y agoWill japan fish less? If not, useless.
- mb7733 4y agoArticle 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.
- mrangle 4y agoExpect more of these international agreements, at an increasing pace over the next couple of decades. Soon focused not just on international waters but on nations. With the agreements having the color of law in the eyes of voters, but not the force of it, followed by codification in the nations once the water has warmed.
- permo-w 4y agothe covid paradigm the virus has finally arrived here? okay now we can close the borders
- sigzero 4y ago"Formal adoption also remains outstanding, with numerous conservationists and environmental groups vowing to watch closely."
- aaron695 4y ago[dead]
- myshpa 4y agoThe western world needs to switch to plant-based diets. We stuff our bellies with 100+kg of meat per capita per year (not counting fish, iirc), we produce a lot of dairy (we started in WW2 and stayed with it), fishing and fish farming is not sustainable at all as well, and the developing world is copying our ways - those people of course want to live like we do, they want to have the same stuff and same quality of life. There are not enough Earths to sustain all people living this life, no planet B, C, D and E. There is enough evidence that we drive wild animals to extinction, and animal agriculture / fishing is the culprit, ergo our eating habits are to blame. No politicians will ever do anything meaningful, when everybody just wants to eat fish several times a week and meat everyday and will stone anybody suggesting otherwise. No wild mammals? No fish in the sea? Maybe do something ... personally ... while there's time. West has to make veganism cool and show the world how to save the little that still remains. Without public support, nothing will ever happen.
- philliphaydon 4y ago[dead]
- ChatGTP 4y agoPersonally I tried to be vegan I was tired, hungry and depressed. I love the idea of it though. I do think we could reduce the amount of meat we eat though. We try do like 3-4 days / nights of week vegetarian, probably mostly vegan really. If everyone started something like this and tried to do more of it it might help. Realistically we just have to many people on Earth, we've also polluted a ruined a lot natural environments. I believe the most healthy/ethical way to consume meat and fish would be if most people do their own hunting, fishing and farming, smaller scale. The problem is the river near my house is full of toxic pollution so I can't fish there, what do you do?
- colordrops 4y agoThere's no scientific reason for you to have been tired, hungry, and depressed unless you introduced foods you were allergic/sensitive to, or you did not eat a balanced complete diet. All essential nutrients can be found in vegan diets, other than B12, if you are not eating fortified foods. You may have had a B12 deficiency, which is extremely cheap and easy to supplement. It might be worth trying again and seeing a doctor and getting blood work if you feel off.
- DustinBrett 4y agoNow they need an accord that says nations are required to respect accords.
- mlhpdx 4y agoThere is a huge amount of cynicism here in the comments. And that is perhaps appropriate for people alive today - as long as the human population grows such problems will as well. We live in a closed system. But, while the armchair activists bring nothing but despair to this discussion there are others who have worked diligently and with optimism to make a difference for many, many years[1]. So far, they’ve failed. But isn’t it a great YC truism that failure is learning? Those admirable folks (including my grandfather, a secretary of the IWC) will keep rising and trying, and someday may just win. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Convention_for_the_Regulation_of_Whaling https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Convention_for...
- throwawaylinux 4y agoThere's cynicism and then there is naive optimism. The time for the ruling class to be given a pass for their failures is at an end. Funny thing is they are the ones calling for and end to complacency, but strangely enough that does not extend to complacency toward their corruption, incompetence, and greed
- tootie 4y agoThere is cynicism, naive optimism, and those who celebrate wins when we get them without declaring the job over.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago"Nations reach accord" is not a win for commoners or for the environment.
- cmehdy 4y agoThe point of the person you're replying to is that celebrating this pretty much falls into the naive optimism category. The Paris accord of 2015 comes to mind: the largest emitter by capita withdrawed within a few years (amongst other things, since few did really follow it fully) and nearly a decade later all predictions look pretty depressing. It was celebrated out of hope, but perhaps people need more concrete results before being happy now.
- tristor 4y agoAh yes, fishing, the other environmental disaster which is nearly entirely caused by China, who utterly refuses to change behavior. At some point the rest of the world will need to take actual actions against China, but it won’t be anytime soon as long as the oligarchs are happy and China has them by the wallets.
- fouc 4y agoAs far as I know, overfishing isn't a China-only issue. Japan, Canada, United States, and more all have fishing industries. It's nearly impossible to police overfishing too.
- ajmurmann 4y agoAnd China is even fishing in South American countries waters and has their military escort the fishing vessels.
- tristor 4y agoOnly China blatantly acts in illegal ways and uses their military to escort fishing vessels that are illegally fishing in other countries territorial waters. The issue isn’t fishing, the issue is how they fish. China straight up does not care about the environment, or sovereignty, or frankly anything which does not directly help China. They operate in an incredibly selfish way towards the rest of the world.
- Sophistifunk 4y agoNone of this matters unless something is done to stop the Chinese "private" fleet from ignoring the laws and borders that already exist.
- hinkley 4y agoChina is 15% of the world population now?
- freilanzer 4y agoAnd?
- hinkley 4y ago17.5% it turns out. When conservation rules are ignored by 20-25% of the population (because they won't be the only ones) they can easily undo all of the efforts of the rest of the people. If I cut my impact in half they can wipe that out by increasing their impact by 20%.