3 ms·

> A norm around consensus-based decision-making discouraged compromise from all countries So, a maladaptive systemic influence was noted, but they continued to

> A norm around consensus-based decision-making discouraged compromise from all countries So, a maladaptive systemic influence was noted, but they continued to focus on lower-level discussions around plastics. When will we start to see that it is the communication protocols that are driving this failure, and that good-faith bargaining is a fallacy, when there is profit to be made? I would like to know how this is being addressed, and which other proposals have been made that represent alternative routes to progress - specifically ones that do not require vested interest to forego their short-term benefits in favour of others' long-term needs. > But only one speaker was able to give a statement before the United States and Kuwait asked the chair to cut them off and conclude the meeting If the observers' voices are so important, why schedule them for the very end? Yet another structural failing that demonstrates that the scale of thinking and organisation being employed is insufficient for the stated task.

buran77 1y ago
Treaties in general aren't the best way to deal with anything. At best they're virtue signaling, at worst they're just misleading. The countries which benefit the most from ignoring the paper will ignore it in the shadows, then in the light, to the point they just unilaterally denounce it and do their own thing. You can't "stimulate" a country's representatives to care about something unless you give them an equally important incentive, carrot or stick. The stick doesn't work with powerful countries, and the carrot is usually too expensive. So the methods employed to negotiate and agree on a treaty's text are even less meaningful.
- willguest 1y ago
  > You can't "stimulate" a country's representatives to care about something unless you give them an equally important incentive, carrot or stick. I agree with this statement, and the reasons why they don't work, but also see it as lacking a systems perspective. Incentives are the result of system dynamics and, regardless of how they are wielded, do little to affect the protocols and structures that formed them in the first place. My suggestion is that, by redefining the structures within which such discussions take place, new incentives will appear. This is anything but trivial and requires a solid understanding of both social psychology and international relations, but it is also not impossible. If we consider consensus to be counterproductive, we must seek alternatives. Of the top of my head, one route could be to leverage the tendency for friend-shoring. This could involve grouping countries such that immediate impacts to profits are no longer shouldered by single interests. Those countries who possess both wealth and a greater sense of urgency could make side-agreements that allow for a kind of liquid-democracy within the final vote, similar to the way that coalitions form in countries that use proportional representation. Another options might be to structure trade agreement such that externalities are re-internalised, forcing countries engaged in extractive processes to confront the impact that their activies make. Carbon credits have worked to do the opposite, acting as a lubricant that allow emission to be easily localised elsewhere and enabling an "out of sight, out of mind" mentality.
- brookst 1y ago
  I just don’t understand the “this approach is imperfect therefore we should do nothing” mindset. Yet it’s so common these days. Is it just nihilism? Learned helplessness? By all means go solve plastics some other way and educate us all. But there really isn’t any value in just declaring entire methodologies useless because they don’t always produce unmitigated good outcomes. For grounding, here are treaties that made a material difference: - The Montreal protocol made a huge difference in reducing CFCs and other ozone destroying chemicals. If you’re old enough to remember “the ozone hole”, this is why you don’t hear it now. Google for reductions in skin cancer attributed to the treaty. - Conventional on Tabacco Control is only 20 years old but has made huge reductions in tobacco addiction and cancer reduction - High Seas treaty is even newer but already reducing overfishing in almost half of the ocean Do you really want to give up and throw those kinds of things out just because some jerks put on a sham treaty show in this instance?
- jancsika 1y ago
  > Treaties in general aren't the best way to deal with anything. Ok, I'll bite. What's the internationally recognized alternative to treaties?
  - SAI_Peregrinus 1y ago
    Killing shitloads of people, mostly young men, remains popular. I wouldn't call war a better alternative, but it is undeniably an internationally recognized alternative.
- bawolff 1y ago
  > Treaties in general aren't the best way to deal with anything. At best they're virtue signaling, at worst they're just misleading. Treaties are just the end result of negotiations. The piece of paper itself is meaningless. The agreement it represents is meaningful. The treaty is just a symbol of the important work.
roenxi 1y ago
> When will we start to see that it is the communication protocols that are driving this failure, and that good-faith bargaining is a fallacy, when there is profit to be made? There isn't anything here to suggest countries are bargaining in bad faith, they seem to be pretty up front about what they want and why they want it. And I don't see why there is a presupposition that an anti-plastic treaty is a good idea. Plastic is clearly of enormous value to society, and the linked treaty draft looks a bit wishy-washy. > Parties shall cooperate in order to prevent disputes and shall seek to settle any dispute between them concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention through negotiation or other peaceful means of their own choice. The section on settling disputes looks like gainful employment for a veritable office of lawyers with too much free time. I see that this is all backed by the threat of rendering a report if parties can't find common ground. That is so soft that I expect anyone operating in bad faith would just sign on to the treaty then ignore it.
- willguest 1y ago
  > There isn't anything here to suggest countries are bargaining in bad faith 1) "...countries reiterated familiar talking points" 2) "Instead of whittling down a draft of the treaty that had been prepared late last year during the previous meeting in Busan, South Korea, delegates added hundreds of suggestions to it, placing a deal further from reach" 3) "Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and others will try to change the mandate so that it no longer refers to the “full life cycle” of plastics, but just plastic pollution — thus turning the treaty into a waste management agreement" Not coming to agreement, though rhetorical posturing, bureaucratic leverage or the undermining of the core sentiment, means that the damaging status quo will continue, so I consider these to be bad-faith actions, taken in the interest of continued profiteering. > Plastic is clearly of enormous value to society This is absolutely true, and also myopic. Plastic is an astonishing material that can remain stable for thousands of years. Why, then, don't we make products that last this long? Because this would not be good for an economy that needs year-on-year production and consumption to increase.
  - roenxi 1y ago
    You've misunderstood what "bad faith" means - it implies lies or dishonesty. What you are describing is just normal disagreement during negotiation. Their position is very clear and there doesn't seem to be any accusations that they are pushing a hidden agenda. They're negotiating in good faith, but you might not like the position they've taken.

buran77 1y ago

Treaties in general aren't the best way to deal with anything. At best they're virtue signaling, at worst they're just misleading. The countries which benefit the most from ignoring the paper will ignore it in the shadows, then in the light, to the point they just unilaterally denounce it and do their own thing. You can't "stimulate" a country's representatives to care about something unless you give them an equally important incentive, carrot or stick. The stick doesn't work with powerful countries, and the carrot is usually too expensive. So the methods employed to negotiate and agree on a treaty's text are even less meaningful.

willguest 1y ago
> You can't "stimulate" a country's representatives to care about something unless you give them an equally important incentive, carrot or stick. I agree with this statement, and the reasons why they don't work, but also see it as lacking a systems perspective. Incentives are the result of system dynamics and, regardless of how they are wielded, do little to affect the protocols and structures that formed them in the first place. My suggestion is that, by redefining the structures within which such discussions take place, new incentives will appear. This is anything but trivial and requires a solid understanding of both social psychology and international relations, but it is also not impossible. If we consider consensus to be counterproductive, we must seek alternatives. Of the top of my head, one route could be to leverage the tendency for friend-shoring. This could involve grouping countries such that immediate impacts to profits are no longer shouldered by single interests. Those countries who possess both wealth and a greater sense of urgency could make side-agreements that allow for a kind of liquid-democracy within the final vote, similar to the way that coalitions form in countries that use proportional representation. Another options might be to structure trade agreement such that externalities are re-internalised, forcing countries engaged in extractive processes to confront the impact that their activies make. Carbon credits have worked to do the opposite, acting as a lubricant that allow emission to be easily localised elsewhere and enabling an "out of sight, out of mind" mentality.
brookst 1y ago
I just don’t understand the “this approach is imperfect therefore we should do nothing” mindset. Yet it’s so common these days. Is it just nihilism? Learned helplessness? By all means go solve plastics some other way and educate us all. But there really isn’t any value in just declaring entire methodologies useless because they don’t always produce unmitigated good outcomes. For grounding, here are treaties that made a material difference: - The Montreal protocol made a huge difference in reducing CFCs and other ozone destroying chemicals. If you’re old enough to remember “the ozone hole”, this is why you don’t hear it now. Google for reductions in skin cancer attributed to the treaty. - Conventional on Tabacco Control is only 20 years old but has made huge reductions in tobacco addiction and cancer reduction - High Seas treaty is even newer but already reducing overfishing in almost half of the ocean Do you really want to give up and throw those kinds of things out just because some jerks put on a sham treaty show in this instance?
jancsika 1y ago
> Treaties in general aren't the best way to deal with anything. Ok, I'll bite. What's the internationally recognized alternative to treaties?
- SAI_Peregrinus 1y ago
  Killing shitloads of people, mostly young men, remains popular. I wouldn't call war a better alternative, but it is undeniably an internationally recognized alternative.
bawolff 1y ago
> Treaties in general aren't the best way to deal with anything. At best they're virtue signaling, at worst they're just misleading. Treaties are just the end result of negotiations. The piece of paper itself is meaningless. The agreement it represents is meaningful. The treaty is just a symbol of the important work.

roenxi 1y ago

> When will we start to see that it is the communication protocols that are driving this failure, and that good-faith bargaining is a fallacy, when there is profit to be made? There isn't anything here to suggest countries are bargaining in bad faith, they seem to be pretty up front about what they want and why they want it. And I don't see why there is a presupposition that an anti-plastic treaty is a good idea. Plastic is clearly of enormous value to society, and the linked treaty draft looks a bit wishy-washy. > Parties shall cooperate in order to prevent disputes and shall seek to settle any dispute between them concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention through negotiation or other peaceful means of their own choice. The section on settling disputes looks like gainful employment for a veritable office of lawyers with too much free time. I see that this is all backed by the threat of rendering a report if parties can't find common ground. That is so soft that I expect anyone operating in bad faith would just sign on to the treaty then ignore it.

willguest 1y ago
> There isn't anything here to suggest countries are bargaining in bad faith 1) "...countries reiterated familiar talking points" 2) "Instead of whittling down a draft of the treaty that had been prepared late last year during the previous meeting in Busan, South Korea, delegates added hundreds of suggestions to it, placing a deal further from reach" 3) "Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and others will try to change the mandate so that it no longer refers to the “full life cycle” of plastics, but just plastic pollution — thus turning the treaty into a waste management agreement" Not coming to agreement, though rhetorical posturing, bureaucratic leverage or the undermining of the core sentiment, means that the damaging status quo will continue, so I consider these to be bad-faith actions, taken in the interest of continued profiteering. > Plastic is clearly of enormous value to society This is absolutely true, and also myopic. Plastic is an astonishing material that can remain stable for thousands of years. Why, then, don't we make products that last this long? Because this would not be good for an economy that needs year-on-year production and consumption to increase.
- roenxi 1y ago
  You've misunderstood what "bad faith" means - it implies lies or dishonesty. What you are describing is just normal disagreement during negotiation. Their position is very clear and there doesn't seem to be any accusations that they are pushing a hidden agenda. They're negotiating in good faith, but you might not like the position they've taken.