Brief Note by Kip Hansen — 10 March 2023
Environmental and climate news is full of headlines like these:
UN forges historic deal to protect ocean life: what researchers think
IMO Welcomes New Oceans Treaty To Protect Marine Biodiversity On The High Seas
New Historic UN Treaty on Oceans Can Help Climate Action
At Last, a New Deal for the High Seas
Nations Agree on Language for Historic Treaty to Protect Ocean Life
There is only one tiny problem – only the last headline is true.
Surprisingly, it is the NY Time’s Catrin Einhorn (repeating the link) that gets the news right.
There is no treaty. Let me re-word that:
There Is No New Treaty.
Not a single nation has approved or signed a new treaty.
What? Wait….if there is no new treaty, if there is no treaty at all, what are all the headlines about?
“After two decades of planning and talks that culminated in a grueling race over the past few days in New York, a significant majority of nations agreed on language for a historic United Nations treaty that would protect ocean biodiversity.” [ source – NY Times – yes, repeated link ]
And (kudos to Catrin Einhorn):
“However, there is still a way to go before the treaty can take effect. The next major step would be for countries to formally adopt the language, which was settled on Saturday night. Then, nations would need to ratify the treaty itself, which often requires legislative approval.”
No country, so far, has gone through the necessary steps to formally accept the language merely agreed upon (by a significant majority of nations), decided upon the exact language that such a treaty might take for their country, no country has ratified such a treaty.
1. There is no treaty.
Despite all the hullabaloo, there is no treaty as yet…and no one knows when such a treaty might be finalized and accepted by a sufficient number of nations to make it enforceable.
2. How exactly the proposed treaty can be touted as a climate change treaty is left unexplained even by those claiming it is so.
# # # # #
It seems that the still-only-hoped-for Oceans Treaty is a climate treaty in the same way the Inflation Reduction Act (2022) is climate legislation; that is, only in the minds of activists, desperate for climate action.
Thanks for reading.
# # # # #
I don’t shop often, but when I do I realize that the Inflation Reduction Act is nothing but lies and thievery.
Looks like you’re ahead of Senator Joe Manchin, who today announced that the Inflation Reduction Act is false and illegal, and does nothing for Energy Security, which was the guarantee he was given for his vote. How hard is it to imagine one Democrat lying to another?
He based his vote on a guarantee without reading it? If it was big and complicated he could have simply said, “you’ll have to wait until I read it and understand it before I vote on it”. Then if that took a vote before he was ready – he simply didn’t have to vote at all. That would have been responsible.
How can a puppet government centrally controlled economic (Direct Taxation Big Brother) system that is completely dependent on money printing (inflation) ever be free of lies and thievery?
Even the targeted 2 percent annual inflation that was the Federal Reserve’s recent years goal means a continuous eroding away of the purchasing power of this fiat currency and therefor in contradiction of one of the three key objectives for monetary policy in the Federal Reserve Act : stabilizing prices.
It has been lies and thievery from the beginning always in need of (create) crisis to kick the can further down the road.
Land of the Free ? In reality slavery has never been abolished. When were you not used as guinea pigs and cannon fodder ?
I wouldn’t say that Catrin Einhorn gets the news right. She got the legal aspects right, but she got the science wrong. There’re no “threats from climate change” to marine life; oceans are alkaline, not acidic; ocean warming is negligible, etc.
Dave ==> Yes, of course, she is on the NY Times Climate and Enmvironmnt Team — has to onclude half a dozen false climate talking points or she’ll be flipping burgers at Micky D’s.
But she got the headline right…..
If this is like other UN treaties, it is assured to be bad.
………will the treaty address the plastic trash “islands” ….it appears to be 5 of them….one in the N. Pacific….one in the S. Pacific….also 2 in the Atlantic and one in the Indian.
These flotsam collections can identify as “islands” if they want to.
“Islands” are just places surrounded by water after all.
The so called islands of trash do not exist, and never have.
But parts of Puerto Rico are pretty dumpy.
An open ocean survey* “Java Sea” at about ten knots and looking over the railing, trash would float by a few times a minute. Trash was mostly plastic bags.
*No land in sight & about 15 minutes of observation.
That’s quite a bit of trash. You must be close to “civilization”.
it is interesting how these floating debris accumulations are apparently formed by winds and currents and are in the middle of the oceans?
anti ==> The still-mythical treaty may promise to handle the mythical trash islands.
That is; representatives from some portion of the government have agreed, roughly, on wording.
Leaving legislatures to argue over wording and changes they insist upon…
Then, they are years away from a legitimate world treaty.
Plus there are a number of countries that have rejected previous attempts to “protect” ocean going creatures.
That’s before we consider those communities dependent upon oceans for their food and transport.
I suspect urban activists will assume ocean dependent communities would be thrilled to starve for the sake of our world’s ocean biodiversity…
Likely, the alleged treaty negotiators expect the USA to host, support and fund their activities.
I saw this announcement, and out of curiosity did some quick research. Several ‘fun’ facts emerged.
So the real problem is overfishing by developing nations (China is still classified as such), and this treaty language has about zero chance of becoming a real treaty.
I guess, the next step is supposed to be that “someone would just have to…” step in and police high seas. It’s not China… it’s not Russia… it’s not Britain… it’s not Japan… uh, help me with this one. 🙄
Which of course is totally not the same as de facto sovereignty over the oceans delegated by UN. Well, not quite… not yet…
Headlines = propaganda.
Without seeing the words, I know any treaty must be roundly rejected. With the present crop of surely the the most inept heads of state the West has ever seen, the totalitarian marxist intent and the strong arm tactics employed by corrupted Global Institutions led by the UN and the WEF, it will have nothing to do with good stuff for the oceans.
And the words themselves will end up not meaning what the dictionary defines. Global warming now means warming, cooling and staying the same. Carbon dioxide that is indispensable to life of all creatures and the plant kingdom is now a dangerous pollutant! Its okay to kill rare eagles and bats to eliminate this life giving molecule. It is a huge tell to first solicit agreement on the words to be used!
Shouldn’t we first determine exactly what is at risk and what can realistically be done about it if anything needs to be done (doing in mankind is not an acceptable remedy! Stopping shipping and travel, swimming, fishing, boating waterskiing, scuba diving…. ditto). Are we to rely on the lies told by GBR coral troughers? The climate wroughters’ who fiddle and invent temperature data. The Malthusian misanthropes?
… and China will continue to rape the oceans.
Street ==> yes, certainly so.
Just like those “rules” about Climate and Carbon Dioxide, there is no body which can force any nation to abide by their rules, especially since these organisations consist of unelected activists.
Kip’s point is non-sequitur. The posts linked clearly says a UN group approved language for a treaty. Which is true and not misleading in any way. ALL treaties start out exactly the same – the hard part is getting multiple nations to agree on language and terms. There IS a treaty now. It simply is a treaty that is not in force and effect until signatory nations sign it and ratify it. ALL treaties work exactly the same, so there is zero point to be made on that most obvious of facts.
Whether and when nations sign and ratify and the treaty goes into force and effect, that is to be determined.
The UNCLOS treaty (“law of the sea”) was drafted decades ago and most but not all nations signed and ratified it. The US accepted most but not all terms in UNCLOS so is counted among the non-ratified.
A treaty does not exist until it is formally accepted by signees.
Until then it just paper with words on it.
mkelly ==> In this case, probably just 1s and 0s on a thumb-drive or in the cloud.
Duane ==> It is the headlines that are misleading and, on their face, untrue. I’m sure you are aware that most newspaper and “news site” readers (and even many WUWT readers) only read the headline and maybe the first paragraph (the lede). Thus we have a world of people that believe not only inaccurate news stories, but moreso, inaccurate news headlines.
The headlines appear in their little short-form news brief pages, such as Google’s news push, and thus it has been spread about that “We are saved, a new oceans treaty!” — which is not actually the case.
Even “There IS a treaty.” is misleading….and is not much more true than a treaty I wrote yesterday afternoon for my own amusement. With no signatories, and no national approvals or acceptance, it is a moot thing. It MIGHT be considered true if just ONE nation approved, accepted, and signed the treaty — then it would be only a treaty between that nation and itself.
A contract, with zero signatory parties, is not a contract.
Great article, Kip. Clear and concise. Keep up the good work. It is always good to read your insightful articles.
Javier ==> Thank you, sir.
My guess: it’s just another component of old Holdren’s plan printed and advertised on schedule even if it’s more dead than alive by now.
«Should a Law of the Sea be successfully established…» etc. http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/