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 balan…

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well.

No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing.

The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party.

That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team.

Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more widel…

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 caused by …