Posted on 04/21/2004 9:15:58 AM PDT by cogitator
Not really. There was not one specific proposal in the whole report to reduce the problem. Just a bunch of create this commission, increase funding to study this, increase communication. I did not see one specific proposal that would do anything to help the environment. All I see is a bunch of jobs created for environmental bureaucrats.
Unfortunately, I'm not knowledgeable about the Law of the Sea convention, but I expect that it would infringe on U.S. territorial rights to some extent. That may not be as important as many of the other critical recommendations in the report, and I think to focus on that particular one as a "deal-breaker" might cause many to tend to ignore the other important things that need to be done. There's a lot the U.S. can do by itself without worrying about the U.N. at this stage.
Some of them are like that. Some of them are more forceful, like doubling research investment, changing the way that fisheries are managed, and establishing an Oceans Trust Fund. Those are decent "action items".
It must really be serious. They don't even have time to use verbs or pronouns.
Yeah but get some Ranch dip and Salsa and man o'man is that a meal or what?
I wouldn't quote him as an expert.
I'm not sure, but I think the oceans still survive.
Fortunately, nature is somewhat resilient. The report doesn't say that the oceans are doomed; it says they're in trouble. It's a call for action before the situation gets significantly worse.
Again, what exactly does any of those mean in concrete terms. Do they want to put more regulations on fishing? I assume they know what the problem is, so why double research, why not say what they think needs to be done? Establish a Oceans Trust Fund for what? These weenies are afraid to take a specific stand and say what they think. They just want blanket authority so they can create regulations without any input from the public. If they think we are over fishing, why not say we must reduce fishing by half? Instead they want to create some regulatory body that can do that without saying that is what they are doing up front.
Some of them are like that. Some of them are more forceful, like doubling research investment
Has there ever been a report by any commission that suggested a reduction in government spending in their area?
Answering that might require reading the report rather than just the press statement. I admit that I haven't done that, because it just came out, but I'd like to have it looked over by the end of the month.
Kinda looking at your questions in general; regarding research, there may be ways to determine how climate variability acts fisheries (i.e., lower the catch quotas in "bad" years). Regarding cutting fishing in half, that's a rather antiquated way to address the problem and the commercial fishing community wouldn't like it. Part of the problem with fisheries management is that commercial fishermen frequently exaggerate their catch statistics to make the fishery look more robust than it actually is. Fisheries managers use catch statistics to set quotas, and higher-than-actual reports lead to higher-than-they-should-be quotas. This kind of positive feedback was one of the main reasons that the Grand Banks cod fishery collapsed. Since it doesn't work, there needs to be a better way.
Imagine the volumes of waste paper that would be created by these new UN commissions and studies. Now the UN building is in NYC, on the Hudson River which flows into the Atlantic Ocean, right?
Where does NYC dump the UN's waste?
Probably not, but I can confidently say that if the report indicated a potential crisis (or at least a serious situation requiring rectification) that the report wouldn't ask for less money.
This one statement identifies the authors as left wing enemies of the US. Any other recommendations they have would have to be seen through a "how are they trying to screw the US with this one" filter
I didn't see the main proposal that would improve our oceans. Increase off shore drilling for petroleum. The Gulf of mexico is being poisoned by oil leaking into it from natural fissures. We need to increase drilling to decrease the pressure pushing this oil into the ocean
It's all about money, duckets, rand, cash , sources of revenue for the polidiots ! Has nothing to do with our environments future at all..........
That's my rant on the matter......Stay safe !
But aren't you completely ignoring the possibility that reports are biased by the fact that the authors are directly benefiting only if a "crisis" is identified? It sounds to me like you're saying we must judge reports based on the need for more money - and the need for more money must mean there is a potential crisis.
You seem to have omitted the possibility that this is little more than a sham.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.