Nations reach accord to protect marine life on high seas

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.<p>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.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;International_Convention_for_the_Regulation_of_Whaling" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;International_Convention_for...</a>

Did a quick Google search and found this:<p>&gt; The treaty does not regulate fishing on the high seas, which is managed by other international organizations.<p>This treaty seems to more about plastic and climate.

Precious few details here. Great news, diplomats made an agreement! If this is like every other treaty I&#x27;ve prematurely gotten excited about, those diplomats don&#x27;t have legislative authority, and each needs to return home to get the treaties ratified by their respective legislatures. And after that, it&#x27;s up to each member nation to pass and enforce legislation to back that up. And in this case that <i>does</i> mean fighting pirates on the high seas. In 20 years, we&#x27;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.

&gt; The question now is how well the ambitious treaty will be implemented.<p>Third paragraph from the end? Talk about a buried lede.<p>This feels very similar to the Paris Climate Agreement. That is, lots of talk. Lots of agreement. But nothing binding. More faux progress.<p>Sad to say, typical.

What exactly is the nature of this agreement? This article didn&#x27;t really go into anything resembling detail.<p>Offhand, I&#x27;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.

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.

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

Article is too light on details to discuss much but for anyone interested in this issue I highly recommend the podcast &quot;The Outlaw Ocean&quot;. While it&#x27;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.

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!<p>:) Prolly would&#x27;ve preferRed if it happened sooner but it is NOww heppenINg.<p>I AM so glad!:):)

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.

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

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

Will japan fish less? If not, useless.

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.

&gt; The question now is how well the ambitious treaty will be implemented.<p>and enforced? seens pretty worthless to me, though the intent is good.

The western world needs to switch to plant-based diets.<p>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.<p>There are not enough Earths to sustain all people living this life, no planet B, C, D and E.<p>There is enough evidence that we drive wild animals to extinction, and animal agriculture &#x2F; fishing is the culprit, ergo our eating habits are to blame.<p>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.<p>No wild mammals? No fish in the sea? Maybe do something ... personally ... while there&#x27;s time.<p>West has to make veganism cool and show the world how to save the little that still remains.<p>Without public support, nothing will ever happen.

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

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.<p>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.<p>China, US, Japan, etc - regardless of what they say, will never stop until sea, land, and air no longer has wildlife.

Awesome! Another accord that can be ignored just like all the others that came before!<p>I love bureaucracy and diplomacy... They make us look so productive while once in a while real change comes along.<p>Forgive my pessimism, but I&#x27;ve seen too many international accords that haven&#x27;t been worth the paper they were printed on (with loads of media coverage and fanfare) during my lifetime.

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.<p>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?

Ah yes, fishing, the other environmental disaster which is nearly entirely caused by China, who utterly refuses to change behavior.<p>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.