You must log in or register to comment.

krav_mark t1_jb08zvy wrote

The "by 2030" part doesn't signal to me we are thinking this is a crisis right now.


voteforHughManatee t1_jb0sj02 wrote

That's 7 years for China to deplete the biodiversity, dredging just off of everyone's coast in "international waters" and then make the entire international community fix it "together".


PullUpAPew t1_jb0vbbp wrote

And they don't respect UNCLOS decisions so not sure what will be different with this treaty


wolfie379 t1_jb11ua9 wrote

What is it going to take before some country gets fed up with China and plants “IJN mines aboard sunken ships” for the dredges to find?


Ducktect t1_jb0m8d3 wrote

And the ever present non-binding nature makes me think we're definitely doing it this time, right guys?


vincentofearth t1_jb0y8r2 wrote

That’s unfortunate, yes, but don’t let perfection be the enemy of the good. I can only imagine how tough it was to put a deal like this together.


Consistent_Ad_4828 t1_jb132p7 wrote

Idk if it’s even good. When I studied international environmental politics in college the consensus was the only ever success was phasing out CFCs for the ozone and that was only due to changing economic factors. The logic of capital seems to make any efforts futile.


Random_Ad t1_jb23nyf wrote

Wdym, things don’t happen overnight. It’s takes time to assess where you have assets right now, what infrastructure are needed and time to buy up the system to actually enforce things. This is so fantasy magic land.


[deleted] t1_jb28ysw wrote



Gerstlauer t1_jb5n8z7 wrote

Oh, you mean China, whose population is greater than the US and EU combined (double, in fact), and where the majority of our everyday consumer goods are manufactured is outputting more CO2 than those countries? I'm shocked. 😐

Their per capita CO2 output is less than half that of the US.


[deleted] t1_jaz5pdv wrote



alphahydra t1_jazo158 wrote

China was one of the driving forces behind brokering this deal.

They may not give a fuck about other countries' sovereign waters, but they do care about their own interests. As a country that consumes vast amounts of fish, they're actually more exposed to loss of ocean biodiversity than a lot of other nations, and the CCP is aware of it. They can't send out factory ships to steal fish from other waters if there aren't any fish.

The agreement is (in part) about where fishing can be done, and they'll be hoping that the 30% of protected ocean (including protecting spawning sites or whatever) will be enough to feed the remainder with fish so they can carry on much as they have been outside those areas.

Also, don't assume that in the final implementation, China will be allowing any of those protected areas close to its waters.


dc456 t1_jazv9v8 wrote

> Also, don’t assume that in the final implementation, China will be allowing any of those protected areas close to its waters.

They will if they want more fish. When these areas have been implemented elsewhere, the unprotected areas immediately surrounding the protected ones saw a large increase in the amount of fish, as they spilled over from the protected areas.


De3NA t1_jb16r0p wrote

Kinda smart imo. Fishing outside spawn points.


morningreis t1_jb06d83 wrote

Them being a driver of it doesn't mean they will abide by it. They have made agreements in the past only to break it after the other party upholds their part and withdraws.

I would expect them to continue to overfish in these areas, knowing that every other nation won't be. They view the whole world as their own, and care very little for the environment, so this would be very on brand for China.


alphahydra t1_jb07rbp wrote

Right, it would be naïve to blindly assume China is going to do the right thing, but it's also cartoonish to assume China is completely ungenuine about their environmental goals.

I don't think their motives are pure and altruistic, but I think they are at least somewhat serious about environmental reform.

The Chinese government is untrustworthy and malevolent in a lot of ways, but they're not stupid. Their geopolitical dream is to become the world's biggest superpower and leading economy. They're looking ten, twenty, fifty years down the line, and they're conscious that for that dream to come true, there needs to be a world worth leading in.


andeleidun t1_jb0n50j wrote

>They're looking ten, twenty, fifty years down the line, and they're conscious that for that dream to come true, there needs to be a world worth leading in.

It's sad that we've completely abandoned this principle, not only in government but almost entirely as a nation. Everything important happens between next quarter and 5 years from now. We don't even really try to plan beyond that anymore.

On one hand, our government is far too unstable and unpredictable. Heavy division and the two party system has resulted in legislative deadlock and every chance that what one president says won't be followed up by the next one. Other countries can only rely on our agreements for 4 years at a time.

On the other hand, profits for the next 4 quarters is what drives everything else. CEOs get brought in to increase immediate profits at the expense of longevity, and they walk away with multimillion dollar payouts for leaving 10,000 people without a job. R&D still happens, but only that which can have a good shot to turn a profit in the next 5 years.


WuTangFinance24 t1_jb1nc2w wrote

The last part is utter nonsense. If what you said were true to the extreme you implied, Tesla wouldn't exist. SpaceX wouldn't exist. We wouldn't be funding nuclear fusion. Venture capital wouldn't be a meaningful thing. OpenAI wouldn't exist. Tesla wouldn't be trying to create FSD. Google, Meta, etc. Wouldn't be investing in AI. The US is arguably leading the world in moving AI forward in both academics and in private industry. There are so many counterpoints to your pessimistic worldview in private enterprise that to suggest it's the reason why the US isn't thinking ahead is a lie, or willful ignorance. The government on the other hand, this is absolutely true. But it's also the nature of democracy. It's the fault of the voters because we reward politicians for short term thinking, not long term thinking.


andeleidun t1_jb1rj8e wrote

>Tesla wouldn't exist. SpaceX wouldn't exist. We wouldn't be funding nuclear fusion. Venture capital wouldn't be a meaningful thing. OpenAI wouldn't exist. Tesla wouldn't be trying to create FSD. Google, Meta, etc. Wouldn't be investing in AI.

The only thing that across belongs on this list is fusion, and I'll grant you that. There's dreamers out there, but by and large underfunded.

None of the other things tolerate MVP launch time frames of less than 5 years. Yes, they have larger plans conceptually, but nothing they'll actually plan for, stick to, the way the Chinese do. If it can't make a sale within 5 years, it's in the vague possible todo pile.

The Chinese actually plan their future out much further. They make modifications, but the concept behind them is to figure out how to bring circumstances back into alignment with the plan, rather than jumping ship to the next biggest profit opportunity.

And you've obviously no idea how venture capital works. If you have a 100MM fund to invest, you are actively planning for one or a combination of the start ups to be worth more than 100MM in 5 years. If not, it's a failure. If you can't convince a VC that you have a way to a profitable valuation in 5 years, you get no money.


morningreis t1_jb0ad8a wrote

Seems like their plan to become the leading superpower is to make the whole world its EEZ.


designatedcrasher t1_jb08rv5 wrote

us has entered the chat


morningreis t1_jb0a842 wrote

The US?

Remember when the UK returned Hong Kong with the agreement that it would remain autonomous? China agreed, then broke it

And I don't know how many times China has broken agreements with the Philippines over islands close to the Philippines... One instance was a mutual agreement to withdraw any forces... Then once Philippine forces were gone, China moved in and set up shop.

These people give no fucks.


designatedcrasher t1_jb0cphp wrote

remember when the uk took hong kong as compensation for the opium wars and then funded extremists during the hand back. remember when the us took over the Phillipines and installed military bases throughout the country gave them independence and kept the military bases


morningreis t1_jb0gp2n wrote

I like how you compare events from 1842 to 2019 like it's the same governments.

I also like how there's been no mention of the US on my part, but you've tried to shoehorn them in twice in an effort to deflect.

And FYI the US has no military bases in the Philippines, they all belong to the Philippines.

And neither of these are even examples of opportunistic breaking of agreements in the style of China.


morningreis t1_jb0n5ed wrote

All of those bases belong to the Philippines. US only goes there with Philippine permission.

Do you want to deflect to the US one more time?


RedDragonRoar t1_jb0vk2r wrote

From what I understand, the Philippine government values US military involvement in the region, primarily because China is a massive problem for any country in the South China Sea.

Having a counter to your biggest geopolitical opponent on hand as a strategic partner is generally something countries like.


designatedcrasher t1_jb1e0dp wrote

it seems like the us wants china to be the big bad wolf while china hasnt invaded a country america is still ripping the middle east apart


RedDragonRoar t1_jb1hx2k wrote

China litterally invaded Vietnam after the US pulled out. Not only that, China has been acting belligerent and has claimed 90% of the South China Sea. They have also threatened to invade Taiwan.


designatedcrasher t1_jb23oup wrote

us pulled out is a cute way of saying lost the war. us has claimed the globe as theirs and regularly threatens any country if they dont tow the line


RedDragonRoar t1_jb27r5t wrote

The United States does not have active claims to the territory of another sovereign state or any claims outside of the territory it currently controls. Claiming otherwise either shows serious delusions or is intentionally misleading.

Furthermore, I did not comment on the outcome of the Vietnam War, only that after the US had left the region, regardless of why they left, that the PRC proceeded to invade Vietnam in an attempt to annex its sovereign territory.


designatedcrasher t1_jb2fej8 wrote

so your shameless about iraq afganistan cool


RedDragonRoar t1_jb2k5aa wrote

What do they have to do with anything in this context?

They were two wars of ideological struggle. One to contain what was believed to be a totalitarian dictator while the other was to contain a terrorist state. Both tried to install democratic governments in their respective regions, and only one succeeded. They were not wars of conquest, although neither were really good for the US or the invaded party, if you exclude Kuwait, as they were liberated as a result of the invasion of Iraq.

Regardless, my opinion of those wars don't change the fact that the countries in the South China Sea see the United States as a valuable strategic partner in containing Chinese aggression in the region, and vice versa.


designatedcrasher t1_jb2pivz wrote

funny how its chinese aggression in the south china sea and not the us thousands of miles away from their coast being aggressive. countries in the region rely on us money and tow the line at their masters bidding


RedDragonRoar t1_jb2rfzx wrote

Do you also think that Putin invading Ukraine isn't aggression, but the US funding them is just because of distance?

Or do you think that Finland and Sweeden joining NATO is Western aggression because they are closer to Russia than the US?


designatedcrasher t1_jb4fpz4 wrote

Ukraine which had become a us puppet filed with far right nationalists and the most corrupt country in the west, even zelensky was named in


WikiSummarizerBot t1_jb4fqtk wrote

Azov Regiment

>Azov Assault Brigade (Ukrainian: Штурмова бригада «Азов», romanized: Shturmova bryhada "Azov") is a formation of the National Guard of Ukraine formerly based in Mariupol, in the coastal region of the Sea of Azov, from which it derives its name. It was founded in May 2014 as Azov Battalion (Ukrainian: батальйон «Азов», romanized: Batalion "Azov"), a volunteer paramilitary militia under the command of Andriy Biletsky to fight pro-Russian forces in the Donbas War.

^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


barriekansai t1_jb0bin5 wrote

Nice whatabout-ism.


drippy_candles t1_jb09749 wrote

Sorry to say this, but that's so incredibly naive. It's reported that China is responsible for 25% of the entire world's illegal fishing. They've been caught fishing within the Galapagos Islands - you don't need the UN to tell you not to do that. And they're known to constantly turn off their tracking devices right before entering illegal waters (over many many places in the world). So yea they'll just continue to tell you what you want to hear and then not comply.


alphahydra t1_jb0a8fd wrote

I didn't say I think they'll stop illegally fishing. If anything, this is so they can continue to illegally fish in other countries' waters. Can't illegally fish if there's no fish.


hgs25 t1_jb0dita wrote

And the rest of the time, they fish just outside of the waters with military enforcement. It’s a game of “I’m not touching you” like poachers do in Africa when they draw lions out of sanctuaries with bait.


Helkafen1 t1_jb0ltfu wrote

25% isn't too surprising, for a country that has one fifth of global population and has relatively poor arable soil.


drippy_candles t1_jb2n8k1 wrote

I'm not sure if you're justifying this, but it seems like it. It's illegal fishing. They also have 17% of the world's population. So they're fishing 33% more than their population. Are they also able to just take 25% of whatever they want?


Helkafen1 t1_jb2qtcm wrote

I'm just reminding people to have a bit of perspective and read the news with calm. A lot of news about China elicit a strong "yellow peril" vibe.

A more interesting take on this topic could be the following: Yes, illegal fishing and overfishing are a global problem, so what are we doing to solve it? A pragmatic answer could be: let's not eat so much fish.


GhostBurger12 t1_jazer62 wrote

Military enforcement?

"Free" fishing vessels for your countries permissible fishing waters isn't awful?


hgs25 t1_jb0d7xb wrote

The primary purpose of the Costa Rican “Navy” is not to deal with pirates or cartels, but arresting Chinese fishing vessels.


[deleted] t1_jazfetz wrote



DutchBlob t1_jazqcmy wrote

Yeah this is like celebrating you’re 30% cancer free :|


dc456 t1_jazum7j wrote

That’s not a good analogy at all.

If anything it’s the exact opposite of cancer spreading to healthy parts of the body - protected zones in the ocean have been shown to thrive, and improve the biodiversity of the surrounding unprotected zones.


alphahydra t1_jazxmaj wrote

Exactly. Obviously it could be better, but I don't think people here are grasping just how HUGE a deal and what a big positive step this is. This is a 25x increase in the amount of protected ocean, countries currently at geopolitical loggerheads (China, and the EU/US/UK) have actually put aside their differences and actively teamed up on championing the deal, the agreement has been agreed with many nations in the Global South to apply it in a way that's fair to them, and environmental groups are extremely positive about it

We should be skeptical of it, yes, but kneejerk doomerism and negativity over any positive move is probably almost as toxic to attempts to protect the environment as big oil propaganda at this point. In fact, some of it IS big oil propaganda.

A third of the ocean protected doesn't mean two thirds destroyed. The opposite, it potentially helps the rest recover too.


dc456 t1_jazxr30 wrote

> kneejerk doomerism and negativity over any positive move

Well this is Reddit…

Edit: I see you’re an oldish account too. Do you think that attitude has got noticeably worse relatively recently?


alphahydra t1_jb034fv wrote

Yes, I do. I think there's a few things at play.

For one, things are genuinely getting worse, and we're starting to see the real effects of climate change and pollution become more apparent, which is shocking a lot of people out of their complacency, flipping all the way to the other extreme. From "that's a problem for the future" to "OMG we're all dead".

People are also a bit frazzled and anxious coming out of the pandemic, and now looking at climate change, biodiversity loss, along with the warn in Ukraine, nuclear risk, the increase in worldwide authoritarianism, H5N1, etc. and it's a lot of crises to process at once.

The internet is also hurting people's ability to grasp nuance. It's critical that we understand there are many different possible levels of "bad outcome". Just because we cross the threshold into one bad scenario doesn't mean all is lost, there's no hope for the future, and there's no point striving to prevent things getting yet worse, or that we can't make things better in other ways.

If we don't celebrate the victories and keep striving, then all really is lost.


dc456 t1_jb05uuz wrote

> The internet is also hurting people’s ability to grasp nuance.

I absolutely agree with this, and I think that extends to logic too. (Too often ‘not A’ is taken to mean ‘B’, when it could be any other letter.)

I also think a factor is that Reddit has attracted more younger people, particularly teenagers, who tend to naturally be a bit more contrarian and absolutist. This means that the top comments often tend to be the opposite of the post.

Which leads me on to my other point which is I think that a lot of the recent influx of users don’t really understand or care about subs, so just see something on their front page and interact with it in the same way.

So a positive sub like this gets doubly hit.


chadnotchad t1_jb03lqs wrote

12 year acct here. Uhhh. Yeah, probably. But there's also millions more users than ever before, and alot of people have alot of reasons to be unhappy. So it's not surprising alot of comments come of extra doomy lately if a large portion of the population is apprehensive af about the future. Having your worries come through casually in a .5 second comment you've thrown into the wind without even necessarily expecting to be replied to, or even intending to read any replies is pretty whatever behaviour, my dude. Is it unhealthy? To ocean conservation efforts, certainly, but maybe it's like a 2020's stress ball for the type of rando's who rightly believe alot what the UN does is lip service, or worse, what the musicians on the titanic did (or didn't do, I admit I'm pulling from the movie here)

The point is if there's more people you see on reddit that feel like doomers, maybe that's simply because there's more people lol. Welcome to the information age, where we get to share all the shitty things 24/7 more or less unrestricted to anyone else in the world at a moments notice


dc456 t1_jb05d8i wrote

> The point is if there’s more people you see on reddit that feel like doomers, maybe that’s simply because there’s more people lol.

I’m not sure that logic holds though, as you’d also expect to see more positive people to counterbalance that.

I think the proportion of unwaveringly negative people has increased.

I think it’s due to a demographic shift in Reddit users as much as anything, but have no real way of knowing.


[deleted] t1_jb0xnk2 wrote

It is a good analogy, because rules, laws, regulations without any teeth don't mean anything. I would LOVE for the oceans to be properly protected, but the reality is a few slaps on the wrist aren't going to change behavior, and 30% is a lot of area to cover if policing were am option.


mansetta t1_jb033mh wrote

What do you mean? That is something. However, I am pretty sure people who are poor and rely on fishing will not let those areas be.


bermudaliving t1_jaz3zuh wrote

Doing this by 2030 is a slap in the face. The ocean is literally on the brink of extinction. Just look up when scientists expect the ocean to go extinct. This is far too late. Google how much ocean life is removed from the sea daily and you’ll understand that by 2030 there will be little left to “protect”.


[deleted] t1_jaz7tsu wrote

The ocean just isn't going to 'be extinct' in 7 years time. Calm down.


BrightSkyFire t1_jb07u2y wrote

Correct! The ocean will not be extinct in seven years. Or fifty for that matter! The ocean is an excellent environment for biodiversity. There will always be some aspect of life inhabiting it.

However, every year, more irreversible damage is done to the ocean. The carrying capacity of the ocean has long been exceeded by humanity's consumption of seafood alone, never mind anything else that depends on it for resources. In the current century, there has been an extremely worrying downtrend in the seasonal regeneration of sea-life.

Needless to say, every year of inaction is another sprint closer to the approaching cataclysmic disaster that will be the collapse of the ocean as a food source. We need to start slowing humanity's approach down as soon as possible, and seven years is not an insignificant amount of time.


SoulOfGuyFieri t1_jazc817 wrote

You can deny it all you want but the next mass extinction is already under way and well documented.


[deleted] t1_jazcj25 wrote

I didn’t deny it’s happening, but the ocean isn’t going to be extinct in 7 years. It just isn’t.


jeho22 t1_jazg6pf wrote

I think this is more of a wording issue...

The ocean and its ecosystems are being damaged horribly. The ocean also is not a species that can go extinct.

Also, since when does anybody listen to the UN? Think China's fleets are going to magically start playing nice? Are countries going to stop dumping their garbGe and sewage into their rivers?

Probably not in my lifetime

Edit: left out the word 'go'


Anderopolis t1_jazpv9x wrote

UN frameworks are adhered to in the vast majority of cases. The Kyoto protocol f.eks. was actually overachieved by everyone that didn't leave it.


CaptainCupcakez t1_jb09rz1 wrote

Any evidence outside of "that sounds crazy and I can't imagine it happening"?


bermudaliving t1_jb3n80x wrote

I should calm down about majority of scientific research coming to the same conclusion?

Please remind me in 5 years time how much sea life is left in order to feed the 4 billion people who depend on it.

By 2030 the human population will grow to 8.5 billion. Where is this extra food coming from?

The lakes across the western coast of United States are on the brink of extinction. Same goes for many lakes across the planet as we speak.

I’m not sure why it’s so hard to see this isn’t a pretty picture humanity is facing.


[deleted] t1_jb3q1fe wrote

Where did I say there wasn’t a problem? There is very definitely a problem, but it’s also useless to make completely hyperbolic and hysterical statements like “the ocean will be extinct by 2030”.

It’s utterly inaccurate, defeatist statements like that which have completely discredited the real climate change facts that scientists have been trying to warn us about for decades. Every time a blatant mis truth about the apocalypse is bandied about, it throws the veracity of everything into question. ‘if that’s so obviously wrong, what else are they lying about?’.

The article itself even states that the UN predicts that 10% of marine life is at risk of extinction. 10% is a lot different to ‘the ocean will be extinct by 2030’. There is more life in the ocean than you can possibly imagine, and yes, we are massively impacting fish stocks, and yes there are deep concerns about unsustainable fishing and pollution and the like, but there is also a wealth of evidence that shows preserving just 30% of a particular waterway can vastly improve marine health in the area (look up Palau and how they saved their ocean, their fishermen and their economy in one fell swoop).

The ocean will NOT be extinct in 7 years. Will we see extinctions in 7 years? yes we will. But even if we drove tuna to oblivion, that doesn’t mean the entire ocean ecosystem will be a barren wasteland in 7 years. People have been predicting massive apocalyptic extinctions for decades, and here we still are, preserving ecosystems, bringing animals back from the brink, working together to improve sustainability and green consumption. There is a long way ti go, and this is an incredible, momentous, world-changing agreement that will only bring benefits. Stop cheapening it with insane generalisations about total extinction. Enough already.

Shelve your hand wringing and existential dread and channel it into educating yourself and empowering societies to adopt these sorts of measures.


Swampberry t1_jb00dro wrote

>Just look up when scientists expect the ocean to go extinct

Sure, I googled "when do scientists expect the ocean to go extinct" and got hits stating anything from 2050 to 2300.

In the future, just state your point and don't tell people to go googling for it.


bermudaliving t1_jb3krk1 wrote

If you look it up for yourself I don’t have to go back and forth with people online. Sorry if that was against the rules of Reddit.


Swampberry t1_jb41ykb wrote

It's more of a human thing, that you state your point instead of telling people to guess what you're talking about and to find info about that. That's just being 21st century too lazy to even bother talking.


GwynsFourKnights t1_jazecds wrote

Yes biodiversity will decrease. But do you realistically think 7 years is far too late for the ocean to go EXTINCT? Most of the ocean isn't even mapped. You are being way to naive to think the whole world could get together in a matter of a couple of years and have great strides. Complaining about it online ain't doing shit, they already just said that getting this done took a lot of effort.


WuTangFinance24 t1_jb1o0t9 wrote

Yeah imagine being angry about progress that five years ago people thought was impossible. This person is probably out eating sushi right now too.


bermudaliving t1_jb3lnwe wrote

I was actually out fishing. Check out “doomsday clock” and what’s changed in the last 5 years. I’m pro protecting the ocean I’m just stating that it’s not going to put a dent into the shit storm we’re about to face. More so if we’re waiting until 2030 after several decades of “talking”.


GwynsFourKnights t1_jbg6oz8 wrote

But you do realize that the best way to actually fix our planets course is through legislation, which we currently lack by a mile. Corporation will continue to do horrible shit because they are greedy and targeting them individually or boycotting isn't gonna do shit. So yeah sure even if this isn't the cure all you were hoping for, it helps open the door just a bit more towards have a more environmentally conscious government that sets real restricting legislation.


WuTangFinance24 t1_jb6n0qm wrote

I know what the doomsday clock is. It's a useless abstraction of doom that is not based on anything empirical. How do you know it's not going to put a dent? Perhaps you have created a doom filter bubble and the only news you see is bad news. Yes, things are bad. But also there's so many good things that are happening. You just don't hear about them in the headlines because it doesn't sell clicks.


bermudaliving t1_jb3lfs4 wrote

The scientific community is that naive I guess because that’s they’re expectations not mine. I’m not scientist.


otisreddingsst t1_jazca7k wrote

Do you mean the extinction from global warming? I believe this treaty is more concerned with fishing


bermudaliving t1_jb3m1ru wrote

Yes but it’s all tied together.

Climate change, over fishing, pollution is all linked to the demise of the ocean.

Scientists are expecting the ocean to collapse right around the same time governments are planning to protect areas?

Imo its uplifting, but as we speak countries are also blatantly ignoring similarly treaties.

We need bigger change.


shirk-work t1_jazhuh0 wrote

This is it folks we are officially done. Maybe humanity will hold on in the least effected locations or maybe it'll build generation bubble cities.


dalaiis t1_jb04bjg wrote

"but we didnt agree completely with the treaty, so we dont have to abide by it" -some UN country in 2029.


bermudaliving t1_jb3kd1w wrote

Exactly. Look at China for instance and their illegal fishing practices.


Broom_Rider t1_jazh71y wrote

Wow you got people mad for some reason. You are of course correct this is too little too late, we need drastic action now.


Ad-for-you-17 t1_jb0bl8h wrote

FYI about 30% of the ocean protected is the minimum generally agreed by scientists to keep most of the necessary functions such as providing us food


dumbidoo t1_jb29w0s wrote

If 30% is literally the bare minimum required to avoid environmental collapse, it's obviously not enough. That leaves no leeway, no room for error or accidents, man-made or natural, even IF everyone actually abides by it. It's pure human hubris to also assume these calculations are 100% accurate when dealing with such complex systems or that some new factors couldn't change things. You don't park a car on the very edge of a cliff and then get to be shocked that something happened to it when you could have easily parked it at a safer distance.


tlvrtm t1_jazy3mf wrote

Such uplifting comments


Impressive-Dig-3892 t1_jb0j330 wrote

"Listen, if things don't immediately change this second to create a utopia while at the same time not affecting me or anyone negatively in the slightest then all is lost."


Enk1ndle t1_jb1gtub wrote

This sub is becoming more depressing than regular news subs.


CaptainCupcakez t1_jb09uxj wrote

We're literally living through a mass extinction mate. It'd be weird if they were positive.


robertinventor t1_jb0jlpz wrote

This is GREAT NEWS. Even organizations like Greenpeace hail it as a historic agreement. They helped broker the deal and they say the UN and countries listened to them! It is brilliant news!


In this comment, I just quote from various organizations such as the IUCN and GreenPeaceNZ saying what a historic treaty it is and how good the text is - they were involved in brokering it.

GreenPeace New Zealand


>Governments at the UN have just agreed on a Global Ocean Treaty! This is a huge win - possibly the biggest conservation victory ever! Here’s a short [THREAD] on how we got here and what it means...
>It’s a victory for the oceans and it’s a victory for people power. Over 5 million people have joined our movement to protect the oceans. The politicians couldn’t ignore our call!
>The treaty enables governments to set up sanctuaries across the global oceans- making it possible to protect 30% of the oceans by 2030, the minimum scientists say is needed for oceans and marine life to recover

They link to this article:

TITLE What if we treated our oceans like they matter? - The seas provide half of our oxygen, and food for a billion people. Let’s give them the protection they deserve.


>These waters beyond national borders are home to creatures even morevaried than in the tropical rainforests. They contain the highest and longest mountain range anywhere on our planet, and trenches deep enough to hold Mount Everest. They’re the highways for whales, turtles, albatross and tuna on their cross-planet migrations.
>If the rescue plan goes ahead, it’ll be one of the biggest conservation efforts in human history, creating millions of square kilometres of new protected areas.

Then this is their comment on the treaty text:


>The agreement of this Treaty keeps the 30×30 target – protecting 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030 – alive. It provides a pathway to creating fully or highly protected areas across the world’s oceans. There are still flaws in the text, and governments must ensure that the Treaty is put into practice in an effective and equitable way for it to be considered a truly ambitiousTreaty.
>The High Ambition Coalition, which includes New Zealand, the EU, US and UK, and China were key players in brokering the deal. All showed willingness to seek constructive compromise in the final days of talks, and built coalitions instead of sowing division. Small Island States have shown leadership throughout the process, and the G77 group led the way in ensuring the Treaty can be put into practice in a fair and equitable way.

World Wildlife Fund Oceans=

QUOTE: Absolutely!! Here's to a new era of collective responsibility for our planet’s most significant global commons 🌏🤝🌊

HighSeasTreaty #BBNJ

They are commenting on the tweet by the UN secretary general

>QUOTE: I'm extremely encouraged that countries have agreed on the UN legally binding instrument to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction. This is an important step to protect our oceans.

Marine Alliance

🌊 The @UN have reached a historic agreement to protect the world's #oceans following 10 years of negotiations! 🌊

📜 The High Seas Treaty places 30% of the seas into protected areas by 2030, aiming to safeguard and recuperate marine nature.

IUCN before the treaty text was agreed

[IUCN do the IUCN Red List of threatened species]

From safeguarding marine biodiversity to enhancing ocean #climate resilience, there are many benefits to a strong #HighSeas Treaty.

ICUN Ocean in their official statement about the treaty

@IUCN Statement on High Seas Treaty #BBNJ, which has just, finally, been agreed. With thanks to all individuals and organisations who have toiled for it over decades!

TITLE IUCN Statement on the High Seas Treaty

>UCN welcomes states finding common ground on the text of the High Seas Treaty in New York, USA on 4 March 2023, after years of negotiations.
>“The High Seas Treaty opens the path for humankind to finally provide protection to marine life across vast swathes of the ocean. Its adoption will close a significant gap in international law and offer a framework for governments to work together to protect global ocean heath, climate resilience, and the socioeconomic wellbeing and food security of billions of people. We stand ready to support its implementation,” says IUCN Director General, Dr Bruno Oberle.
>Although more ambitious measures will be needed, this legally-binding agreement marks an important step towards protecting the two-thirds of the ocean that lies beyond national jurisdiction.
>IUCN particularly applauds the alignment of the Treaty with other international commitments including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, and the creation of a special fund to finance the rehabilitation and ecological restoration of marine biodiversity.
>IUCN and its Members have been advocating for such an agreement for two decades and have been providing scientific and legal advice to negotiators since the start of the formal negotiations (in 2018), in particular on provisions concerning area-based management tools, especially marine protected areas. Commitments must now be implemented in ways that help address climate change and the many threats to marine ecosystems, and guarantee the critical benefits marine ecosystems provide to people.
>IUCN is calling for adoption and ratification to be fast-tracked, to bring the High Seas Treaty into force. The Union is offering its continued support to Parties and stakeholders to lay the foundation for a rapid, effective, and equitable implementation.


robertinventor t1_jb0rt4z wrote

As the IUCN said in that last quote, this builds on the historic agreement in COP15 in December between countries to protect 30% of their land, oceans, inland waters and coastlines by 2030, managing them sustainably. Importantly it recognized the importance of indigenous people and local communities, instead of giant parks with no-one living there they are living reserves managed sustainably. All the activist organizations agreed it was a good treaty including those that support indigenous peoples and forest dwellers.

This is the moment when the text was agreed at COP15

Indigenous peoples are responsible still for 1/4 of the world’s land area and 70% of the land they look after are either protected or very low human intervention. They were fine with the final text.

The International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity celebrated the “timely recognition” of Indigenous peoples and local community contributions, roles, rights and responsibilities to nature in the GBF. A statement from the group said:

“We have spoken and you have heard us, let us now put those words into action.” Carbon brief goes into more detail. For instance, another outcome. Developed countries agreeing to mobilise $30bn for developing countries by 2030.

. [COP15: Key outcomes agreed at the UN biodiversity conference in Montreal - Carbon Brief] I

This is what the IUCN says about the COP15 agreement:

TITLE: IUCN welcomes the new Global Biodiversity Framework and 30% ambitions

The new Global Biodiversity Framework is now, finally, in place. The hard work continues. We must shift our focus to implementation. That means engaging from the grassroots up to the governance structures that enable fair and effective area-based conservation.

IUCN’s position ahead of the COP on the key elements of the GBF was largely realized. Target 3, in particular, heralds a paradigm-shift in the way we promote, recognize and support fair and effective conservation.

Target 3 calls on at least 30% of the planet under effective conservation by 2030. The target specifically provides timely recognition of Indigenous Peoples and local communities’ contributions, roles, rights and responsibilities to Mother Earth. IUCN echoes the praise that the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB) confers on the text for its "strong language on respect for the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities”.

This inclusivity will be carried forward by IUCN through a ‘Who Counts’ approach, including partnership with our IPO members and their constituents, to help countries identify and effectively conserve areas of importance for biodiversity – ie the ‘What Counts’ for the 30% by 2030.

In addition, Target 3 sits at the centre of a suite of inter-related targets. The links between Targets 1 (Spatial Planning), 2 (Restoration) and 4 (Species Conservation Action) are key to the success of the GBF. There are real and immediate opportunities for IUCN as a Union to connect species conservation and restoration Targets into the equation for effectively conserving and connecting areas of importance for 30%.

In particular, IUCN has a live opportunity to entwine and enlace our work on Restoration (30% of degraded areas by 2030 under Target 2) and on area-based conservation, across our portfolio and Commission expert focus. In addition, the contribution of area-based conservation to species and biodiversity recovery is of critical importance. IUCN’s leadership on protected and conserved area standards, good governance for area-based conservation, restoration planning, implementation and monitoring of conservation outcomes, and the global species action plan (GSAP) provide a key opportunity to engage Parties with trusted, clear and impartial advice on how to move ahead with implementation of the overall GBF.

IUCN is seeking to join forces with other partners to coordinate and convene dialogue in and between countries on how to implement solutions for the new 30x30 challenge. We look forward to working with all of you on our shared ambition for at least 30% of the planet under fair and effective conservation by 2030!

The four targets they talk about are here:



Ensure that all areas are under participatory integrated biodiversity inclusive spatial planning and/or effective management processes addressing land and sea use change, to bring the loss of areas of high biodiversity importance, including ecosystems of high ecological integrity, close to zero by 2030, while respecting the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities.


Ensure that by 2030 at least 30 per cent of areas of degraded terrestrial, inland water, and coastal and marine ecosystems are under effective restoration, in order to enhance biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, ecological integrity and connectivity.


Ensure and enable that by 2030 at least 30 per cent of terrestrial, inland water,and of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, are effectively conserved and managed through ecologically representative, well-connected and equitably governed systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, recognizing indigenous and traditional territories, where applicable,and integrated into wider landscapes, seascapes and the ocean, while ensuring that any sustainable use, where appropriate in such areas, is fully consistent with conservation outcomes, recognizing and respecting the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities including over their traditional territories.


Ensure urgent management actions, to halt human induced extinction of known threatened species and for the recovery and conservation of species, in particular threatened species, to significantly reduce extinction risk, as well as to maintain and restore the genetic diversity within and between populations of native, wild and domesticated species to maintain their adaptive potential, including through in situ and ex situ conservation and sustainable management practices, and effectively manage human-wildlife interactions to minimize human-wildlife conflict for coexistence.


There are 19 other targets, 23 in total.


robertinventor t1_jb0s87k wrote

The big news also is that they are making sure it is the right 30%. The IUCN wrote about that here:

TITLE: We need to protect and conserve 30% of the planet: but it has to be the right 30%


Between 2010 and 2020, the expansion of protected areas was biased toward locations that were remote and less suitable for agriculture, rather than areas of importance for species and ecosystems. As momentum to protect 30% of the planet’s surface by 2030 builds, Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) are our best tool when deciding which places to protect, write representatives of institutions in the KBA partnership.

  • G7 leaders endorse protecting and conserving 30% of the planet.
  • President of the United States Joe Biden pursues a target of 30% protection by 2030.
  • EU commits to protecting 30% of land and sea under new Biodiversity Action Plan.

These and similar headlines have been appearing in the press in recent months. There is growing support for conserving at least 30% of our planet by the year 2030 to halt biodiversity loss and the degradation of important ecosystem services, and move towards a nature positive future; whilst recognising and safeguarding the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, and their rights to land and resources.

The effectiveness of such a target depends on whether we are conserving the “right” places, but determining the right places has historically been challenging for national governments without standardised guidance from scientists and other conservation experts.

Areas are often designated as protected where it is convenient rather than because they are important for conserving biodiversity.

While a percentage target for protected and conserved areas is simple, measurable, and can help gain political and public traction; areas are often designated as protected or conserved where it is convenient rather than because they are important for conserving biodiversity. Protected areas tend to be created in remote places, at high elevations, and in locations that are less likely to be developed for agriculture.

Since 2010, protected areas have increasingly been created in places that are not sites of global biodiversity importance. If this trend continues, we will undoubtedly keep losing biodiversity even while achieving area-based targets. The solution is to ensure that plans to meet these targets comprehensively incorporate areas of importance to the persistence of biodiversity. Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) are recognised as sites of global importance for biodiversity, and should be used to guide where protected and other conserved areas are established.

That's been turned around with this new agreement.

The key points were:

  • Effective conservation and management of at least 30% of the world’s lands, inland waters, coastal areas and oceans, with emphasis on areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functioning and services. The GBF prioritizes ecologically-representative, well-connected and equitably-governed systems of protected areas and other effective area- based conservation, recognizing indigenous and traditional territories and practices. Currently 17% and 10% of the world’s terrestrial and marine areas respectively are under protection.
  • Have restoration completed or underway on at least 30% of degraded terrestrial, inland waters, and coastal and marine ecosystems
  • Reduce to near zero the loss of areas of high biodiversity importance, including ecosystems of high ecological integrity
  • Cut global food waste in half and significantly reduce overconsumption and waste generation
  • Reduce by half both excess nutrients and the overall risk posed by pesticides and highly hazardous chemicals
  • Progressively phase out or reform by 2030 subsidies that harm biodiversity by at least $500 billion per year, while scaling up positive incentives for biodiversity’s conservation and sustainable use
  • Mobilize by 2030 at least $200 billion per year in domestic and international biodiversity-related funding from all sources – public and private
  • Raise international financial flows from developed to developing countries, in particular least developed countries, small island developing States, and countries with economies in transition, to at least US$ 20 billion per year by 2025, and to at least US$ 30 billion per year by 2030
  • Prevent the introduction of priority invasive alien species, and reduce by at least half the introduction and establishment of other known or potential invasive alien species, and eradicate or control invasive alien species on islands and other priority sites
  • Require large and transnational companies and financial institutions to monitor, assess, and transparently disclose their risks, dependencies and impacts on biodiversity through their operations, supply and value chains and portfolios…

Emphasized throughout the approved documents are the needs to foster the full and effective contributions of women, persons of diverse gender identities, youth, indigenous peoples and local communities, civil society organizations, the private and financial sectors, and stakeholders from all other sectors.

Also emphasized: the need for a “whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach” to implementing the GBF.

. Press Release: Nations Adopt Four Goals, 23 Targets for 2030 In Landmark UN Biodiversity Agreement


Avatara93 t1_jazbil2 wrote

China will ignore it.


AstroEngineer314 OP t1_jazgqvi wrote

It's highly likely there'll still be some illegal fishing, but at least some of the above board stuff will abide by it. It's better than nothing.


TimeSpentWasting t1_jb05zje wrote

Or completely encircle the 30% and wait for potential escapee's


the-medium-cheese t1_jb08udc wrote

This is how natural fish sanctuaries already work

And believe it or not, it's actually beneficial for both the ecosystem and humans.


TimeSpentWasting t1_jb095ya wrote

You can't fish 70% of the seas to extinction and expect the 30% to be ok.

You've got to go full cheese, not medium


the-medium-cheese t1_jb0gqye wrote

Obviously, the protected 30% is not going to be randomly distributed. They would focus on conserving biodiversity epicentres by placing them in these protected zones, wouldn't they?


mojo94499 t1_jb0iw56 wrote

I'm having trouble finding a list of countries who will be signing this treaty.


boochyfliff t1_jb0tm6w wrote

The treaty hasn't been signed yet - while the final text has been agreed, it has not yet been formally adopted (this will happen in a separate meeting).

Following this, the treaty is open for signing by countries, which generally signals their intention to participate, but this is not binding. For signing countries to be bound by the treaty they need 'ratify' it, which they have to do according to their own national laws/procedures, which can be lengthy. If the country agrees to ratify the treaty, they will then be bound to the treaty. But there are often countries that have signed treaties but not ratified them (e.g. the US is signatory to a number of international agreements, but the Senate has rejected a number of proposals to ratify them).

So essentially: there is no list yet and it will be some time before we understand which countries are bound to this treaty.


yijiujiu t1_jb1hbq0 wrote

Yeah, except the US and other major powers are just going to do what they please...


CharlieD00M t1_jb0tp30 wrote

30% ain’t enough


robertinventor t1_jb0z8kf wrote

It is enough. Even the most activist organizations like the WWF, GreenPeace and the IUCN are hailing it as a historic agreement - and they helped broker the deal. They say they were listened to in the treaty text.

30% is enough but it has to be the right 30%.

This is the IUCN on how it has to be the right 30%.


Some more statements to add to my previous comment


> NEW YORK CITY, United States (4 March 2023) – WWF strongly welcomes the
agreement of the text for a new global legally binding High Seas Treaty
reached by nations today in New York, creating a framework to conserve
marine life and restrain harmful activities in two-thirds of the ocean.

> “This is a landmark moment for the ocean – one that will usher in a new era of collective responsibility for our planet’s most significant global commons,” says Pepe Clarke, Global Ocean Practice Leader for WWF. “Last year, nations committed to halt and reverse nature loss by 2030. Today’s achievement is a significant step toward delivering on that promise.”

> WWF believes the Scientific and Technical Body set to be established as a result of the agreement will be instrumental in ensuring that proposals and management plans for marine protected areas are robustly assessed, and environmental impact assessment reports are received and made accessible to the global community. Alongside this, the Implementation and Compliance Committee will operationalise enhanced cooperation in a meaningful way, and a dispute resolution mechanism gives an opportunity for states to take action against breaches.

> The obligation on developed states to share knowledge and technologies, and to build capacity across countries will facilitate a more equitable participation in the conservation of the high seas, in particular for developing nations.

> “Ocean advocates worldwide can savor this moment years in the making,” says Battle. “But this is not a finish line. For the treaty’s good intentions to deliver results on the water, we’ve got to keep the pressure up. Once technicalities are worked out and the treaty is adopted, it needs to enter into force so that it can be put to work – all countries must quickly formally sign and ratify it into their own national legislation. Words matter, but our ocean needs action.”

> The high seas support crucial fisheries, provide habitats for hundreds of thousands of species and help mitigate climate impacts, with 23% of human-related carbon emissions being absorbed by the ocean over the last 10 years. The high seas and the wildlife that migrates through these waters will finally be afforded the attention they deserve, once enough countries adopt and ratify this agreement enabling the instrument to enter into force.

The moment it was agreed:

> New York, 4th March 2023: Late this evening governments meeting at the United Nations in New York reached agreement on key substantive issues for a new Treaty to protect High Seas marine life.

> “Following a two week long rollercoaster ride of negotiations and super-hero efforts in the last 48 hours, governments reached agreement on key issues that will advance protection and better management of marine biodiversity in the High Seas,” said Rebecca Hubbard, Director of the High Seas Alliance.

> The High Seas, the area of ocean that lies beyond countries’ national waters, is the largest habitat on Earth and home to millions of species. With currently just over 1% of the High Seas protected, the new Treaty will provide a pathway to establish marine protected areas in these waters. It is also a key tool to help deliver the recently agreed Kunming-Montreal target of at least 30% protection of the world’s ocean by 2030 that was just agreed in December- the minimum level of protection scientists warn is necessary to ensure a healthy ocean. But time is of the essence.

> The new Treaty will bring ocean governance into the 21st century, including establishing modern requirements to assess and manage planned human activities that would affect marine life in the High Seas as well as ensuring greater transparency. This will greatly strengthen the effective area-based management of fishing, shipping and other activities that have contributed to the overall decline in ocean health.

> The issue of sufficient financing to fund the implementation of the Treaty, as well as equity issues surrounding the sharing of benefits from marine genetic resources was one of the key sticking points between North and South throughout the meeting. However, right up to the final hours of the meeting, governments were able to land an agreement that provided for equitable sharing of these benefits from the deep sea and High Seas.

> “It’s been a very long journey to get to a Treaty. We will be looking to the 52 states that make up the High Ambition Coalition to lead the charge to adopt, ratify and identify important High Seas areas to protect,” said Rebecca Hubbard. “

Many endorsements here:

> Dr. Lance Morgan, President, Marine Conservation Institute: “Coming on the heels of the Global Biodiversity Framework, this historic agreement is a huge step towards ensuring marine protected areas in the High Seas and reaching 30x30.”

> Lisa Speer, Director of the International Ocean program at Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC): “This text provides the basis for protecting key biodiversity hotspots in the High Seas. We now have a pathway to achieve the goal of meaningfully protecting at least 30% of the ocean by 2030, a goal that scientists tell us is crucial to maintaining ocean health in the face of ocean warming, acidification and other impacts of climate change. Now let’s get started.”

What's with all the -ve comments here today:? This is supposed to be r/upllifting not r/collapse.

I recommend checking with reliable sources before reacting instead of just going by gut feeling.


Zeraphil t1_jb1fcqt wrote

Please, you can cite all the sources you want but the expert redditor here is saying it’s not enough, so it’s not enough.


robertinventor t1_jbf56gq wrote

What are their credentials? Perhaps they should apply to be scientific consultant to WWF and the IUCN?


Azure_Crystals t1_jbnjolg wrote

My apologies but I think they were sarcastic, they were agreeing with you.


dumbidoo t1_jb291sc wrote

If 30% is literally the bare minimum required to avoid environmental collapse, it's obviously not enough. That leaves no leeway, no room for error or accidents, man-made or natural, even IF everyone actually abides by it. It's pure human hubris to also assume these calculations are 100% accurate when dealing with such complex systems or that some new factors couldn't change things. You don't park a car on the very edge of a cliff and then get to shocked that something happened to it when you could have easily parked it at a safer distance.


deck4242 t1_jb2ifgj wrote

Lets wait to read the treaty before celebrating. Those chinese fishermen exterminating sharks in the pacific are still there… and japanese are still killing dolphins and whales like there is no tomorrow.


AutoModerator t1_jayspa3 wrote

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


Musicferret t1_jb0omdt wrote

China: “Lots of fish living in those 30% of waters, aren’t there? Be a real shame if someone sent 1000 fishing boats to drag the shit outta em.”


stimmedervernunft t1_jb1hp8m wrote

Really good news. You just wish there were more unity. Like if aliens arrive to suck our oceans empty with giant ships. Also if this sub just banned the word China about 99 per cent of negative comment wouldn't exist. /s


CharlieApples t1_jb1pwoq wrote

Don’t even bother trying to protect any parts of the South China Sea. The CCP will blatantly ignore the treaty and threaten to nuke anyone who tries to stop them.

Unless the US Navy agrees to assign a shit ton of ships to just loiter around the protected areas for the foreseeable future, China will literally pretend that the treaty never happened and dredge wherever they want.


[deleted] t1_jb1v9na wrote

After the whole ocean has already been overfished, polluted, and smothered in plastic, they’ll protect less than a third of it. Cool.


8l00dl1ne5 t1_jb1vfai wrote

Ah yes another thing that will fail


nadacloo t1_jb1wr20 wrote

Way too little, way too late. We're doomed. And by we, I mean younger generations. I'll be dead before it gets real shitty.


dangil t1_jb09m7y wrote

Where’s the seaQuest DSV to enforce this?


HHWKUL t1_jb10adt wrote

Laugh in chinese fishing fleet


Fredasa t1_jb18xl6 wrote

Right. That'll work wonders when a certain country already has no qualms violating national waters for their fish.


jkeegan123 t1_jb0y7of wrote

What's up little dude!


CheriJ2 t1_jb1twyj wrote

Agenda 2030 is terrible. This is not uplifting news because the WEF is trying to depopulate the world using bs “climate change” as the excuse. The UN is evil!


Paranoid_Neckazoid t1_jb0shhh wrote

The un has no teeth. This means nothing. It will be ignored.


sc00ttie t1_jb0v8wn wrote

Isn’t this like creating a pool comprised of 70% peeing section?


PrometheusOnLoud t1_jb16hjz wrote

That's cool how they broadcast the decimation of the marine fishing industry and another major blow to the food production supply chain. Also, the countries that do the most damage to the ocean will not follow these rules, China being chief amongst them. The UN and the progressive "save the world" liars will destroy every human tradition they can if it means they can signal their virtue.


khansala007 t1_jb00nqx wrote

yes, as uplifting as grandpa joe seeing charlie with a golden ticket


famously t1_jb0a41d wrote

Guess who won't abide by the restrictions: Every asian country. They're not abiding by current restrictions. This is a feel good, useless bit of ink on paper...unless there are real teeth, and money for enforcement applied.


PabstBlueFalcon t1_jb0aaox wrote

High Seas Treaty reserves 30% of ocean for Chinese fishermen.


Whiteyak5 t1_jb0cxrs wrote

Ah, so designated areas for Chinese and South African fleets to rape. Got it.


[deleted] t1_jb07gg1 wrote

Please, all this doom and gloom. The best and worst possible scenario is humanity dying off because of our own stupidity, but nature and earth will be far longer lasting than humans probably ever will


CaptainCupcakez t1_jb09ylk wrote

You're not a cool edgy person for saying you wouldn't care about several billion deaths.


[deleted] t1_jb0anpd wrote

I’m not trying to be edgy. If I was I would try school shootings, besides I don’t think it’s edgy to point out what in my OPINION is the truth.

See how I’m actively letting people know it’s just a silly stupid opinion from a random stranger nobody cares about, instead of trying to frame it as a truth ?


CaptainCupcakez t1_jb0bto6 wrote

No one thinks you're trying to say it's truth, it's obviously your opinion.

Its just a stupid opinion.


[deleted] t1_jb0c5vs wrote

And that’s okay for you to think that. God don’t we love the freedom of having opinions


CaptainCupcakez t1_jb0ctku wrote

Yeah but unless you're a sociopath or have absolutely no friends, relatives, or social interaction with other humans it's not your opinion. You're just being edgy.

Its just abstract enough that you can think it without recognising that "I dont care about billions of deaths" means you also don't care about any of the numerous examples of genocide in history.


[deleted] t1_jb0d60j wrote

You’re looking at this too deeply. All I said was that life and nature will not die out if humans disappeared.


CaptainCupcakez t1_jb0dhic wrote

I mean you did say the best outcome was all humans dying off. Unless you meant managed population decline with no mass death.


[deleted] t1_jb0h6xo wrote

This isn't about environmental protections at all. It's a "land grab" by the UN members so they can claim control over resources in international waters that they didn't have a claim to before.


Sonny-Moone-8888 t1_jb03mmn wrote

So I guess they are going to build a wall in the ocean and add security to keep that 30% protected from the rest of Earth's oceans. Genius plan. Real affective. I should just repent now.


bhbull t1_jazxv5n wrote

How about 100%?


bplturner t1_jazztrz wrote

What would that even mean? 100% of the ocean is off limits to fishing?


ErieSpirit t1_jb02gpe wrote

>How about 100%?

A surprising amount of the ocean is within the Exclusive Economic Zone of countries, as defined by another UN agreement called UNCLOS. So based on UNCLOS, countries have control over waters within their EEZ. This new agreement addresses waters outside the of EEZ's of countries where currently no one had control. I think that this is a good start.


_borisg t1_jazwkkv wrote

The UN is a joke, no one cares about it or even tries to act like they do


ErieSpirit t1_jb02280 wrote

>The UN is a joke, no one cares about it or even tries to act like they do.

Well, you may have a point on some issues, but certainly not all, and not when it comes to the oceans.

Some of the most widely used and adhered to international agreements regarding the oceans are from the UN. UNCLOS which defines territorial waters, innocent passage for ships, and general laws for the use of the ocean, is a UN agreement. Then there is the International Maritime Organization, part of the UN, which among many things is responsible for the COLREGS. COLREGS are the "rules of the road" for ships at sea to avoid collisions. I can assure you that every country in the world cares about these, and adheres to them.

So I don't agree that no one cares about the UN.


_borisg t1_jb080ch wrote

So its purpose is to be an ocean regulator? Should have just named it ‘aqua police’.


10catsinspace t1_jb0gsn5 wrote

“Uh oh, my kneejerk cynicism was inaccurate, better find something else to be complain about”


_borisg t1_jb0lcl5 wrote

You can try and make fun of me all you want. Take the role of the UN around the war in Ukraine and see how much actual use they have. It’s a pointless organisation for serious world problems.


10catsinspace t1_jb1hujv wrote

I’m not saying the UN is great. I’m poking fun at you moving the goalposts when someone responded to your cynical shitpost with a substantial, well-reasoned reply instead of just like…taking the L and moving on.

Why are you shitposting on r/upliftingnews anyways? Cmon mannnn


_borisg t1_jb1lbfz wrote

I forgot this is an echo chamber for copium sometimes, not a realistic look of the world. I don't consider stating facts shitposting but sure.


10catsinspace t1_jb1o3ce wrote

The first reply posted many more facts (complete with context!) and you responded to 0% of it

I ain’t huffing copium, but that doesn’t mean everything is completely awful at all times. Sharing those tiny bright spots is, you know, the purpose of this sub…


_borisg t1_jb2f6t1 wrote

I never disputed those. I never said everything is awful at all times either. I’ve just expressed an opinion and I’m getting attacked for whatever reason.