Nations reach accord to protect marine life on high seas

https://apnews.com/article/un-oceans-biodiversity-treaty-0b024fa07e8c1947236d8b8491ebf92c

by acdanger • 3 years ago

366 169 3 years ago

apnews.com

NegativeLatency• 3 years ago

Although a step in the right direction, without restrictions on commercial fishing it feels like lip service.

melling• 3 years ago

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.”

dirtyid2• 3 years 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.

zabzonk• 3 years 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• 3 years ago

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.

darth_avocado3• 3 years ago

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• 3 years ago

Uhh that's why we need an international accord.

PradeetPatel2• 3 years ago

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.

LeoPanthera• 3 years 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• 3 years ago

Yeah all the countries with major fishing fleets need to agree. Otherwise you’re just outsourcing the fishing.

sigzero2• 3 years ago

A quick look shows those (mostly Asian countries) are not part of the coalition.

O__________O19• 3 years 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-...

darth_avocado3• 3 years ago

The ocean doesn’t care about per capita. If a billion people eat 50 pounds of fish annually, you still remove 50 billion pounds of fish. A country with a 1 million population eating 100 pounds of fish will still be doing less harm. And before we go into “rights”, just because a country irresponsibly has a larger population, doesn’t mean that country has unilateral rights to destroy the oceans.

Besides the claim Asian countries not eating as much seafood is false. Per capita, China, South Korea, Japan are easily the top consumers, if you exclude small island nations and low population countries. [1] Vietnam and Myanmar would also be in the list, but their consumption is based more on fresh water fisheries and not ocean based.

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fish-and-seafood-consumpt...

irrational• 3 years ago

I'm already doing my part by not eating any kind of seafood.

indymike2• 3 years ago

We don’t need an international accord, we need the top 10 countries to stop pillaging the international waters for their consumption.

At this point, we should be sustainably farming seafood instead of pillaging nature.

gre2• 3 years ago

Seafood farms are not necessarily the answer either.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment...

phantomathkg• 3 years ago

Do you have data to back this up, or is it your hypothesis?

O__________O19• 3 years ago

No, though I posted data that shows their claim is at best misleading and not viable:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35225376

suddenclarity• 3 years ago

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.

ethbr03• 3 years ago

I 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."

OtomotO2• 3 years ago

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.

exq• 3 years ago

Montreal Protocol worked.

voisin• 3 years ago

Anything else since 1987?

mrangle2• 3 years ago

The Montreal Protocol didn't require military enforcement. This will. And this is its significance.

badrabbit• 3 years ago

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.

KarlKemp• 3 years ago

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. A kilogram, meter, second, or joule is the same as your trading partners‘, thanks ISO, and the T in NATO seems to be some mighty piece of paper, considering how it manages to scare the shirtless man shitless.

weq• 3 years ago

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...

OtomotO2• 3 years ago

My contrarianism isn't mindless, mind you!

permo-w8• 3 years ago

better than nothing

praxulus• 3 years ago

What do you suggest we do instead?

ar9av• 3 years ago

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?

beachy• 3 years 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• 3 years ago

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.

O__________O19• 3 years ago

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.

Avicebron2• 3 years ago

That's one way to speedrun war with all of asia simultaneously

O__________O19• 3 years ago

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.

permo-w8• 3 years ago

I don’t like to impinge upon the purity of your vision, but this needs to be said. such extreme actions don’t work. you need to boil the frog slowly. I appreciate that this is the argument that an interested party would make, but there’s a reason for that and that’s because it makes sense. in practice, without supreme power—and even then—swift swingeing actions create anger, disobedience, fight, even if the people affected agree with you. some people are simply mistrustful of fast change of any variety: good or bad. small c conservatives in other words. they will kill you, doesn’t matter how right you are

better to slowly increase the temperature

O__________O19• 3 years ago

> you need to boil the frog slowly

Possible I am mistaken, but 70% of world’s wildlife has disappeared past 50 years. Exactly how much time do you think is left?

> they will kill you, doesn’t matter how right you are

Agree.

__MatrixMan__3• 3 years ago

How about a pact to not extradite people accused of sabotaging fishing vessels which:

- are not registered with a nation who is part of the accord

- have not signed the accord individually

...supposing the sabotage is done in a nonlethal way? It might create incentives.

O__________O19• 3 years ago

Might be wrong, but would be surprised if this worked, given Chinese Navy for example frequently escorts fishing boats, so I assume if sinking ships became common China would just sink any unflagged ships as pirates ghost ships.

impalallama• 3 years ago

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• 3 years 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• 3 years ago

Thoughts and prayers for fish.

klyrs• 3 years ago

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.

bombolo• 3 years ago

Will japan fish less? If not, useless.

mb7733• 3 years ago

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.

mrangle2• 3 years ago

Expect 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-w8• 3 years ago

the covid paradigm

the virus has finally arrived here? okay now we can close the borders

sigzero2• 3 years ago

"Formal adoption also remains outstanding, with numerous conservationists and environmental groups vowing to watch closely."

myshpa17• 3 years ago

The 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.

ChatGTP• 3 years ago

Personally 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• 3 years ago

There'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.

myshpa17• 3 years ago

tried to be vegan I was tired, hungry and depressed

First I've ate what my vegetarian girlfriend was eating. I too was always hungry, and soon gave up.

Later when I've decided to switch to veganism I've read a lot about it first (as always with anything new). I've started replacing my favourite recipes with their vegan variants. For few weeks I've counted calories and nutrients (there're apps for that) to make sure I'm eating healthy. I've learned to cook and replace meat products with their plant-based versions.

There are many ways how to eat vegan, not all of them are healthy (junk) or wise (raw / fruit only).

healthy/ethical way to consume meat and fish would be if most people do their own hunting

10000 years ago there were only 5 mil. people on Earth, and they've managed to reduce wild mammals population from 20 mil. tonnes of C to 15 mil. tonnes. Can you imagine doing something similar today, with 8 billion of us?

the river near my house is full of toxic pollution so I can't fish there, what do you do

Don't eat fish at all, and maybe take up on activism ... complacency won't save us.

adam_arthur2• 3 years ago

If the plant based meat alternatives ever got around to actually being substantially cheaper than meat, this would likely be mitigated to a large extent.

Beyond Meat's revenue has actually been declining YoY, which was surprising. It turns out people aren't very excited about paying more for an imitation version.

barbazoo2• 3 years ago

"Plant-based diet" != "Plant based meat". I wish people learned at school how to cook a vegetarian meal. You don't need meat to make something delicious, you don't need meat to get the required amount of protein, it's all bullshit. You get everything you need from non-animal sources.

no_butterscotch• 3 years ago

We could use less meat but I don't think you should take a "moral" argument to this.

There are plenty of cultures around the world for which cuisine plays a big role including being carnivore-based. There are festivals, arts, traditions, culinary heritage, etc.

I believe as said we could eat less meat, but I think taking an argument from a "moral supremacist" sort of stand-point isn't the right solution to get people over to that side.

barbazoo2• 3 years ago

here are plenty of cultures around the world for which cuisine plays a big role including being carnivore-based.

You're totally right obviously that there are but also I think we're at a point in the history of humanity where we're informed enough to take the impact of our actions into consideration regardless of how long we've performed those actions.

myshpa17• 3 years ago

I don't think you should take a "moral" argument to this

And I've done that ... where exactly?

tossaway0• 3 years ago

I’m a bit ignorant on this, but what are the projections for consequences to ecosystems if we just keep eating to extinction?

I ask because your solution seems to just get us to the same place diet wise: having to eat plants now instead of later. You could see why that alone wouldn’t be a motivation.

myshpa17• 3 years ago

I ask because your solution seems to just get us to the same place diet wise: having to eat plants now instead of later

We will have to eat plants sooner or later.

But if we'll start sooner, we'll also may have the functioning land and sea ecosystems and a lot of biodiversity.

I know you wouldn't notice it on your plate, and maybe you don't see any value in that, but I'm hoping that many (or at least some) do.

__MatrixMan__3• 3 years ago

I agree. A good first step would be to figure out how to align the markets with the needs of the ecosystems that support those markets.

It's hard to get excited about going vegan when that can of lentil soup costs the same as a can of beef stew despite one being 10x more energy intensive to create. Are you really reducing demand for meat or are you just making making meat cheaper for everyone else?

myshpa17• 3 years ago

You're right that many foods, processed ones, are much more expensive than animal based ones despite them being more energy and land resource intensive.

But most vegan foods are the cheapest ones in the supermaket ... I mean raw rice, beans, lentils, vegetables. If you cook that soup yourself, it won't cost more than a bag of lentils, 1-2 onions, veggie stock, few potatoes, salt, pepper, and 20 minutes in pressure cooker (I've done it today :) Delicious too, and you've got 5l of soup for ... 3 USD?

matheusmoreira2• 3 years ago

the developing world is copying our ways

Eating meat has been part of our culture for a very long time.

myshpa17• 3 years ago

We eat way more meat/dairy than our ancestors did (after we switched to farming, because we killed off most of the megafauna).

ahzhou• 3 years ago

While true, I think the quantity is abnormal in terms of human history, since meat used to be considered a luxury item.

krmboya• 3 years ago

And there are some cultures that lived exclusively on meat based diets

dinvlad2• 3 years ago

Here's hoping that new tech like lab-grown meat will also be there in time to achieve this..

myshpa17• 3 years ago

It may not come for decades ... at scale. Then it may be already late.

javman• 3 years ago

Have you seen what modern plant farms look like?

Massive water usage, lowering river levels drastically. Some don't even reach the ocean anymore (see the Colorado River, from Wikipedia: "Since 1960, the Colorado has typically dried up before reaching the sea, with the exception of a few wet years."). Aquifers are running low (here's some info on that from 20 years ago: https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-103-03/).

Pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers.

Massive land use for mono-culture farms, displacing whatever wildlife and native plants were present before the farm. Add more farms and you'll have less wildlife.

Everyone switching to plant-based diet sounds nice, but is really not going to fix much. Unless you can change farming to not be so resource intensive? There are just too many people.

myshpa17• 3 years ago

Animal agriculture uses 3x more land than plants.

Do you really think that those things you've listed (water, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, displacing wildlife...) are solely a problem for plant farms? I must have misunderstand you.

Everyone switching to plant-based diet sounds nice, but is really not going to fix much

We could save 75% of those lands. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use

andbberger• 3 years ago

irrelevant given efficiency losses when raising livestock. where do you think the food your chickens eat comes from

stainablesteel• 3 years ago

The western world needs to switch to plant-based diets.

i've never seen any data to back up this viewpoint, and its always coupled with other alarmist messages. i'm skeptical of comments written this way.

myshpa17• 3 years ago

That's my viewpoint. The data is there, but most choose to ignore it, together with all those reports of environmental destruction.

DiscourseFan2• 3 years ago

I was vegetarian for a while and then vegan for a whole year. I understand where you're coming from but it's simply not healthy for most people to go without any animal products in their diets, especially for growing children and those who cannot consume hight amounts of fiber (crohns disease). Perhaps the tax breaks enjoyed by the beef and dairy industries should be removed, but most sources of animal protein are remarkable environmentally friendly--farmed fishing is far less carbon intensive than almost all plant-based sources of protein[1]. Once you look at the facts of the matter, veganism has more to do with how someone feels about harming animals than actually helping the environment: most vegans still eat a lot of heavily processed foods, drive cars, fly on planes, have most of their food and consumer goods delivered to them via trucking. These are not issues that can be solved on an individual level but systemic and society wide problems that need to be addressed with public policy. No individual(s) are to be blamed. It is a collective, social responsibility.

[1]https://news.asu.edu/20190621-solutions-environmental-impact...

myshpa17• 3 years ago

it's simply not healthy for most people to go without any animal products in their diets

That's not true, sorry. https://talkveganto.me/en/facts/suitable-for-all/

Salmon and tuna also ranked high for efficiency, but only when they were wild-caught.

Do they also account for by-catch? Do they account for the fact that 40+% of marine plastics is fishing nets & equipment? https://www.seaspiracy.org/facts

most vegans still eat a lot of heavily processed foods, drive cars, fly on planes, have most of their food and consumer goods delivered to them via trucking

There are many things wrong with our society. But I don't agree with you here. Plant-based is one of the best things an individual can do the lower his carbon footprint (together with reduction of driving & air travel).

DustinBrett• 3 years ago

Now they need an accord that says nations are required to respect accords.

mlhpdx• 3 years ago

There 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...

throwawaylinux6• 3 years ago

There'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

tootie2• 3 years ago

There is cynicism, naive optimism, and those who celebrate wins when we get them without declaring the job over.

colechristensen• 3 years ago

“Show me the money” (evidence of improved sea ecology)

I just don’t care about the latest agreement, good intention, or promise. I don’t care to find out where the loopholes are to make the just a showpiece.

I’m not going to celebrate politicians demonstrating some plan for how things are going to be, I’ll celebrate victories.

Too much these days is just celebrating and condemning appearances instead of actual results.

O__________O19• 3 years ago

IWC’s mission: “provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry” — what it actually should be - “do not impact whales in any form”

Love YC, might be wrong, but top 20 founders of the almost 10,000 that have gone through YC created majority on YC’s returns; this count doesn’t even include the 100s of thousands of applicants that never got in. And now have ever to my knowledge come close to changing way 8 billion people behave on a daily basis.

Least for me, I am not an arm chair activist, though unlike most activists, I (now) see activism largely as a waste of time. Not because it randomly makes progress, but because the progress made normally has nothing to do with actual changes to way people reason about the world, and everything about how the feel about the world.

To me, without changing way people reason, everything else feels like it’s not addressing the fundamental problem.

pomian• 3 years ago

There are environmental engineers, who have worked for the last thirty years, scientifically developing guidelines and regulations, that are science based, for the many factors affecting our environment. From water, soil and air pollution, to the toxicology of the chemicals we use, on the present day harm, and long term harm, of almost every industry in use today. With this data, political decisions could and should be made, on the use, of our environment, our impact on it, and the allowable levels of future disturbances. Here in lies the rub. Policy, decided by politics, over rides science almost every day. But, there is hope. There are numbers to work with, there are regulatory regimes, there is a chance for hope. We just have to create global agreement systems, and possibly global enforcement systems. Obviously, is not easy. But, there is hope!

jacquesm2• 3 years ago

Someday they will win. The question is how many of us will be around to celebrate the win and in what conditions they will be living. That's the thing we can still influence.

hinkley3• 3 years ago

Japan is still whaling for 'scientific research' which is a loophole they put into the law. "Fool me twice, shame on me" is not cynicism, it's experience.

tristor2• 3 years ago

Ah 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• 3 years ago

As 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.

ajmurmann2• 3 years ago

And China is even fishing in South American countries waters and has their military escort the fishing vessels.

tristor2• 3 years ago

Only 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• 3 years ago

None of this matters unless something is done to stop the Chinese "private" fleet from ignoring the laws and borders that already exist.

hinkley3• 3 years ago

China is 15% of the world population now?

freilanzer2• 3 years ago

And?

vipvipv• 3 years ago

I 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!:):)

Nations reach accord to protect marine life on high seas

Related Stories