I have just returned from the Third United Nations Ocean Conference (UNOC3) and while progress was achieved e.g concerning the reduction of underwater noise, the oil industry remains the unaddressed elephant in the room. At least we had the opportunity to address and voice our concerns in Plenary towards country representatives, presenting the call supported by 208 NGOs globally. You can watch the intervention here https://youtu.be/VJT6ENMQeBg?si=rDSA_gjfbQ5D5JOj
So our work to ban offshore gas and oil has not achieved the necessary reaction from policy makers and therefore we are going to reflect, strategize and continue and try increasing our pressure. Thank you for supporting our initiative in the run up to UNOC3. We also have been gaining lots of additional support through it, with 116 630 signatures to the petition – Because Our Planet is Blue! Let’s continue!
Nicolas, just found this. I suspect we both knew the goals we wish to achieve would be diverted. This is the unwavering pattern of all battles against Earth destroying industry. We must fight on, raise awareness, and get more people involved. We are out of time for anything less than radical action. The real radicals are the voices of industry. People like you and I are pleading for sanity.
They refuse to even address the low-hanging fruit. An enforcable law to stop fishing operations from dumping their used nets in the ocean would be a start. They chide consumers for plastics when these nets are 60% of the plastic in the ocean, and the polymers are arranged to kill fish.
Yes, indeed abandoned fishing gear is widely regarded as one of the most harmful forms of plastic marine debris, also referred to as “ghost gear”. It accounts for 46 per cent of the floating debris in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch for example. Like Geoffrey said – enforceable is the key. The current regulatory framework is fragmented and inadequate to address ghost gear. It is a complex issue and will require a package of policies coordinated globally and implemented nationally, regionally or internationally, covering the full lifecycle of plastic fishing gear and involving multiple stakeholders, in order to be effective. Therefore, the call to reduce Plastic Production, addressing the full life cycle of plastics, is one of the six action points to protect the health of the ocean in the OceanCare Campaign Because Our Planet is Blue – next to banning offshore oil and gas exploration addressed in “Silent Sabotage”.
Absolutely, Nicolas. TO all that. And picking up on the demand to reduce plastic production -- this is key: because plastic is made out of refinery byproducts, in order to reduce the industrial supply of plastic precursors, we must also DRASTICALLY REDUCE OIL PRODUCTION. This will require a total seizure of the means of producing oil and all its associated products. Industrialists will not regulate themselves. It is past time for a revolutionary movement, and it would have been helpful if the liberals (including environmentalists) hadn't spent the fifty years prior to Global Warming destroying anything left of laissez-faire in an orgy of military spending known as the cold war.
Right now, for example, the most realistic chance we have to limit ghost gear is to get the CCP to do something. Only they have the organizational ability to create an unfragmented and adequate regulatory framework, and if they ask their coalition (all the countries that have benefitted from belt and road loans) to agree to that regulatory framework, it could work. If we wait for the United Nations to do something, there is no hope whatsoever. Instead of appealing to liberal capitalists, let's work in solidarity with the rest of the world. How is OceanCare going to succeed at getting a worldwide ban on offshore oil and gas exploration?
Thanks Jed for your engagement. Your question regarding achieving a ban on oil gas exploration is of course not an easy to answer. We have been successful at local and national level in Europe so far, when working hand in hand with local communities and the Alianza Mar Blava at the time (starting around 2013) opposing the many oil and gas exploration projects around the Balearic islands in Spanish waters. After years of campaigning joint efforts resulted in withdrawal or rejection of all such licence applications and the waters between the Spanish mainland and Balearic islands were declared as Marine protected Area (the Cetacean Migration Corridor). Thereafter, the Spanish government introduced a new climate law which banned any new exploration activities for hydrocarbon resources. Portugal followed that decision. There are some – few – countries with similar bans in play, like France, but of course we all know we need a ban at international level. And while we of course do have thoughts and plans about it, it is clear that it requires regional and international efforts. UNOC3 is an opportunity to give direction, but no matter what the outcome is, our joint path is without alternative and to be continued
Just a matter of time until the fossil fuels are too expensive to extract. That is the only way we will ever get rid of plastic, unfortunately. But gazillions of tons of that shit will live forever in our environment.
well, there are numerous Treaties that have been formalized and put into practise and while there are always deficits, multilateralism is - in my opinion - the only way forward. The High Seas Treaty dealing with international waters is most likely (hopefully) coming into force in 2026 and I am also hopeful for the international Plastics Treaty which enters its final negotiatoon time in coming weeks. However, anything is as good as we - humans - make it and we all know that the key challenge is with first - what such ZTreaty says and means - and second with implementation and enforcement- It requires will, resources and engagement. And all such will only happen if the public has an eye on it and pushed policy makers and regulaters to act. So, It's us to keep up the pressure.
International agreements are absolutely necessary for halting destruction of the oceans and all biosystems on Earth reaching fail points. Understanding that human behavior can undermine such treaties to one degree or another, does not mean we should abandon such efforts. Your work takes great effort and patience working through bureaucracy, and I appreciate it. People like myself not constrained by working within organizational restrictions dealing with the realities of political compromise can supply some of the equally needed more "radical" voices. Saving an inhabitable planet demands all of us who are aware to bring our diverse abilities to bear on those who only care for money.
A worldwide coalition regarding ocean health is exactly what is needed. I just see no evidence of the impetus necessary for such a logical step. There will be bitching and bickering and much ado about nothing. Results will be insignificant and in 20 years, we will be fighting the same battle in a much more severe climate.
An enforceable law to stop net dumping would be good, but enforceable is the key. How many fishing boats and how many enforcers are available? Perhaps fishing nets should be rentals with high deposits to ensure returns. Of course, fishing nets bring other problems as well in the sheer size of the catch and sweeping up species that don't belong. Then we could talk about bottom trawling destroying sea floor ecosystems. It's all appalling, and ultimately contributes to our own demise.
It's not too hard. maybe just first step is, we pass a ballot measure in the State of California that says that if you want to sell fish in the state you need to come back to port with the same number of nets with which you left and you put a single guy at each harbor checking. it wouldn't even cost too much to make manufacturers install tracking tags on the nets.
It certainly would be one of multiple options to improve the situation. But what your point, Jed, also raises, is the role that ports can play in addressing certain environmental issues. Take a look at the Port Vancouver’s ECHO Programm which is a shining example for stimulating the reduction of underwater noise emissions from shipping. And ports are playing an instrumental part in decarbonizing shipping
At least it would show people that an effort is being made. The amount of discarded fishing detritus must be 1000X worse than we believe…out of sight, out of mind. Hot, polluted water rife with deadly traps…and it’s only going to get worse. There are no valid indicators for potential improvement of oceanic living conditions.
I have just returned from the Third United Nations Ocean Conference (UNOC3) and while progress was achieved e.g concerning the reduction of underwater noise, the oil industry remains the unaddressed elephant in the room. At least we had the opportunity to address and voice our concerns in Plenary towards country representatives, presenting the call supported by 208 NGOs globally. You can watch the intervention here https://youtu.be/VJT6ENMQeBg?si=rDSA_gjfbQ5D5JOj
So our work to ban offshore gas and oil has not achieved the necessary reaction from policy makers and therefore we are going to reflect, strategize and continue and try increasing our pressure. Thank you for supporting our initiative in the run up to UNOC3. We also have been gaining lots of additional support through it, with 116 630 signatures to the petition – Because Our Planet is Blue! Let’s continue!
Nicolas, just found this. I suspect we both knew the goals we wish to achieve would be diverted. This is the unwavering pattern of all battles against Earth destroying industry. We must fight on, raise awareness, and get more people involved. We are out of time for anything less than radical action. The real radicals are the voices of industry. People like you and I are pleading for sanity.
They refuse to even address the low-hanging fruit. An enforcable law to stop fishing operations from dumping their used nets in the ocean would be a start. They chide consumers for plastics when these nets are 60% of the plastic in the ocean, and the polymers are arranged to kill fish.
Yes, indeed abandoned fishing gear is widely regarded as one of the most harmful forms of plastic marine debris, also referred to as “ghost gear”. It accounts for 46 per cent of the floating debris in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch for example. Like Geoffrey said – enforceable is the key. The current regulatory framework is fragmented and inadequate to address ghost gear. It is a complex issue and will require a package of policies coordinated globally and implemented nationally, regionally or internationally, covering the full lifecycle of plastic fishing gear and involving multiple stakeholders, in order to be effective. Therefore, the call to reduce Plastic Production, addressing the full life cycle of plastics, is one of the six action points to protect the health of the ocean in the OceanCare Campaign Because Our Planet is Blue – next to banning offshore oil and gas exploration addressed in “Silent Sabotage”.
Absolutely, Nicolas. TO all that. And picking up on the demand to reduce plastic production -- this is key: because plastic is made out of refinery byproducts, in order to reduce the industrial supply of plastic precursors, we must also DRASTICALLY REDUCE OIL PRODUCTION. This will require a total seizure of the means of producing oil and all its associated products. Industrialists will not regulate themselves. It is past time for a revolutionary movement, and it would have been helpful if the liberals (including environmentalists) hadn't spent the fifty years prior to Global Warming destroying anything left of laissez-faire in an orgy of military spending known as the cold war.
Right now, for example, the most realistic chance we have to limit ghost gear is to get the CCP to do something. Only they have the organizational ability to create an unfragmented and adequate regulatory framework, and if they ask their coalition (all the countries that have benefitted from belt and road loans) to agree to that regulatory framework, it could work. If we wait for the United Nations to do something, there is no hope whatsoever. Instead of appealing to liberal capitalists, let's work in solidarity with the rest of the world. How is OceanCare going to succeed at getting a worldwide ban on offshore oil and gas exploration?
https://thespouter.substack.com/p/petromarxismpetrocommunism-overview
Thanks Jed for your engagement. Your question regarding achieving a ban on oil gas exploration is of course not an easy to answer. We have been successful at local and national level in Europe so far, when working hand in hand with local communities and the Alianza Mar Blava at the time (starting around 2013) opposing the many oil and gas exploration projects around the Balearic islands in Spanish waters. After years of campaigning joint efforts resulted in withdrawal or rejection of all such licence applications and the waters between the Spanish mainland and Balearic islands were declared as Marine protected Area (the Cetacean Migration Corridor). Thereafter, the Spanish government introduced a new climate law which banned any new exploration activities for hydrocarbon resources. Portugal followed that decision. There are some – few – countries with similar bans in play, like France, but of course we all know we need a ban at international level. And while we of course do have thoughts and plans about it, it is clear that it requires regional and international efforts. UNOC3 is an opportunity to give direction, but no matter what the outcome is, our joint path is without alternative and to be continued
Just a matter of time until the fossil fuels are too expensive to extract. That is the only way we will ever get rid of plastic, unfortunately. But gazillions of tons of that shit will live forever in our environment.
“will require a package of policies coordinated globally”
Not a chance in hell that ever happens. If there is one time in the history of our planet where global cooperation was achieved, I’m unaware of it.
well, there are numerous Treaties that have been formalized and put into practise and while there are always deficits, multilateralism is - in my opinion - the only way forward. The High Seas Treaty dealing with international waters is most likely (hopefully) coming into force in 2026 and I am also hopeful for the international Plastics Treaty which enters its final negotiatoon time in coming weeks. However, anything is as good as we - humans - make it and we all know that the key challenge is with first - what such ZTreaty says and means - and second with implementation and enforcement- It requires will, resources and engagement. And all such will only happen if the public has an eye on it and pushed policy makers and regulaters to act. So, It's us to keep up the pressure.
International agreements are absolutely necessary for halting destruction of the oceans and all biosystems on Earth reaching fail points. Understanding that human behavior can undermine such treaties to one degree or another, does not mean we should abandon such efforts. Your work takes great effort and patience working through bureaucracy, and I appreciate it. People like myself not constrained by working within organizational restrictions dealing with the realities of political compromise can supply some of the equally needed more "radical" voices. Saving an inhabitable planet demands all of us who are aware to bring our diverse abilities to bear on those who only care for money.
A worldwide coalition regarding ocean health is exactly what is needed. I just see no evidence of the impetus necessary for such a logical step. There will be bitching and bickering and much ado about nothing. Results will be insignificant and in 20 years, we will be fighting the same battle in a much more severe climate.
An enforceable law to stop net dumping would be good, but enforceable is the key. How many fishing boats and how many enforcers are available? Perhaps fishing nets should be rentals with high deposits to ensure returns. Of course, fishing nets bring other problems as well in the sheer size of the catch and sweeping up species that don't belong. Then we could talk about bottom trawling destroying sea floor ecosystems. It's all appalling, and ultimately contributes to our own demise.
It's not too hard. maybe just first step is, we pass a ballot measure in the State of California that says that if you want to sell fish in the state you need to come back to port with the same number of nets with which you left and you put a single guy at each harbor checking. it wouldn't even cost too much to make manufacturers install tracking tags on the nets.
Those seem like solid ideas.
It certainly would be one of multiple options to improve the situation. But what your point, Jed, also raises, is the role that ports can play in addressing certain environmental issues. Take a look at the Port Vancouver’s ECHO Programm which is a shining example for stimulating the reduction of underwater noise emissions from shipping. And ports are playing an instrumental part in decarbonizing shipping
all my ideas are solid, even if liberal environmentalists don't like some of them. https://thespouter.substack.com/p/petromarxismpetrocommunism-overview
At least it would show people that an effort is being made. The amount of discarded fishing detritus must be 1000X worse than we believe…out of sight, out of mind. Hot, polluted water rife with deadly traps…and it’s only going to get worse. There are no valid indicators for potential improvement of oceanic living conditions.
There was a Texas-sized island of plastic floating in the Pacific a few years ago. What hasn't broken down I suspect is still floating or maybe even growing because of ocean current patterns. https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/about/media/how-big-great-pacific-garbage-patch-science-vs-myth.html
Microplastics 🤬
We can’t just sweep those up and haul them away. I’m waiting for the next hot book, “Living With Microplastics (in your brain).”