Skip to main content

Sluggish approach to an Ocean Treaty?

As the first round of UN negotiations towards a historic UN Ocean Treaty draws to a close, Dr Sandra Schoettner of Greenpeace’s global ocean sanctuaries campaign has criticised the 'sluggish' response of key countries.

Our oceans are our life support system.  The ocean ecosystem produces half the oxygen we breathe.  The oceans absorb carbon dioxide and play a vital role in containing global warming.  We need to protect our oceans.  This is why a new international treaty is needed.

Turtle in Pacific Ocean courtesy of Greenpeace


But not all countries are coming on board with the vigour required.

Oceans belong to us all

Greenpeace says oceans beyond national boundaries "belong to us all" and need urgent international protection.

For the first time in history, this shared responsibility could be enshrined in law with a Global Ocean Treaty.

Over the past two weeks of UN negotiations, many countries from Africa, Pacific and Caribbean islands, Latin America and Europe have eagerly set about drafting the text of the treaty. 

They know just how acute the threats facing our oceans are and how fast they need to move to get an agreement from states by the deadline of 2020.

We need a treaty 'with teeth'


But Greenpeace warns that some governments are "lacking in vision and ambition." 

It points to countries like Norway, Russia, and Iceland, and says  

it’s disappointing to see the US, Australia and New Zealand being sluggish. Our oceans are in crisis and simply can’t wait while countries drag their feet.

To safeguard wildlife, tackle climate change and ensure food security for billions of people, we need to protect at least 30% of our oceans by 2030. 

We need to see a Global Ocean Treaty which has real teeth and allows us to create a network of ocean sanctuaries around the world. The future of our oceans depends on this treaty.



Subscribe to The Thin End






Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods.  Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects?  A new report now provides some of the answers. New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism. Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases cau