Nations Pledge to Protect Animal, Plant Diversity
Kanebridge News
Share Button

Nations Pledge to Protect Animal, Plant Diversity

Nearly 200 countries reached the non binding deal, which targets conserving at least 30% of land and water areas by 2030

By AYLIN WOODWARD
Tue, Dec 20, 2022 9:09amGrey Clock 2 min

Nearly 200 countries agreed to take steps over the next 10 years to protect the world’s diversity of animals and plants.

Under the agreement reached Monday in Montreal, the countries, led by China and Canada but which didn’t include the U.S., agreed to conserve 30% of their land, inland waterways and coastal and ocean areas. They also agreed to limit the risks of pesticides and cut nutrient runoff from farms.

Signatories to the deal said it would mark a big step toward protecting the planet’s biodiversity if countries met their targets by 2030.

The agreement represents “a first step in resetting our relationship with the natural world,” said Inger Andersen, the undersecretary general of the United Nations and executive director of the U.N. Environment Programme.

Yet the deal wasn’t legally binding, and countries may not have the tens of billions of dollars needed to take concrete action. Countries have failed to abide by similar agreements in the past.

Brazil and Indonesia were among countries that signed onto the new agreement but asked for funding. The Vatican wasn’t part of the deal, in addition to the U.S.

The deal could help improve the planet’s future, said Basile van Havre, a co-chair for the working group that negotiated the agreement language, but “it’s going to be difficult, painful and costly to get there.”

The U.S. sent a delegation to Montreal to participate in discussions but it didn’t sign the pact because it isn’t a signatory of a 1992 international treaty encouraging biodiversity conservation. Though Bill Clinton signed the treaty shortly after becoming president, the Senate didn’t ratify it.

The U.S. will work to reach the framework’s targets, a State Department spokesman said. U.S. officials have said they supported a 30% conservation target.

The U.S. is probably more in compliance with agreement goals than most member countries, said Kilaparti Ramakrishna, director of the marine policy centre at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts.

The deal, known as the Kunmin-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, is aimed at curbing the decline or disappearance of species, known as biodiversity loss.

The world has been losing species of plants and animals in recent years, which many scientists attribute to factors including overfishing, farming practices and destruction of habitats due in part to climate change and industrial and agricultural development.

Under the framework, nations agreed to nearly two-dozen targets for trying to reduce the biodiversity loss, including restoring at least 30% of land, water, coastal and marine ecosystems where it is more difficult for species to survive and reproduce.

Countries signing the deal also pledged to reduce nutrient runoff from farming and other practices by at least half and minimise the introduction of invasive species.

Governments also pledged to ensure that transnational companies disclose their impact on biodiversity, and that wild species harvesting and trade is done safely and legally, to reduce the risk of pathogens spilling over between species.

—William Mauldin contributed to this article.



MOST POPULAR
11 ACRES ROAD, KELLYVILLE, NSW

This stylish family home combines a classic palette and finishes with a flexible floorplan

35 North Street Windsor

Just 55 minutes from Sydney, make this your creative getaway located in the majestic Hawkesbury region.

Related Stories
Lifestyle
The Uglification of Everything
By Peggy Noonan 26/04/2024
Money
Personal Wardrobe of the Iconic Late Fashion Designer Vivienne Westwood Goes up for Auction
By CASEY FARMER 25/04/2024
Money
Rediscovered John Lennon Guitar Heads to Auction, Expected to Set Records
By Eric Grossman 24/04/2024
The Uglification of Everything

Artistic culture has taken a repulsive turn. It speaks of a society that hates itself, and hates life.

By Peggy Noonan
Fri, Apr 26, 2024 5 min

I wish to protest the current ugliness. I see it as a continuing trend, “the uglification of everything.” It is coming out of our culture with picked-up speed, and from many media silos, and I don’t like it.

You remember the 1999 movie “The Talented Mr. Ripley,” from the Patricia Highsmith novel. It was fabulous—mysteries, murders, a sociopath scheming his way among high-class expats on the Italian Riviera. The laid-back glamour of Jude Law, the Grace Kelly-ness of Gwyneth Paltrow, who looks like a Vogue magazine cover decided to take a stroll through the streets of 1950s Venice, the truly brilliant acting of Matt Damon, who is so well-liked by audiences I’m not sure we notice anymore what a great actor he is. The director, Anthony Minghella, deliberately showed you pretty shiny things while taking you on a journey to a heart of darkness.

There’s a new version, a streaming series from Netflix, called “Ripley.” I turned to it eagerly and watched with puzzlement. It is unrelievedly ugly. Grimy, gloomy, grim. Tom Ripley is now charmless, a pale and watchful slug slithering through ancient rooms. He isn’t bright, eager, endearing, only predatory. No one would want to know him! Which makes the story make no sense. Again, Ripley is a sociopath, but few could tell because he seemed so sweet and easy. In the original movie, Philip Seymour Hoffman has an unforgettable turn as a jazz-loving, prep-schooled, in-crowd snob. In this version that character is mirthless, genderless, hidden. No one would want to know him either. Marge, the Paltrow role in the movie, is ponderous and plain, like a lost 1970s hippie, which undercuts a small part of the tragedy: Why is the lovely woman so in love with a careless idler who loves no one?

The ugliness seemed a deliberate artistic decision, as did the air of constant menace, as if we all know life is never nice.

I go to the No. 1 program on Netflix this week, “Baby Reindeer.” People speak highly of it. It’s about a stalker and is based on a true story, but she’s stalking a comic so this might be fun. Oh dear, no. It is again unrelievedly bleak. Life is low, plain and homely. No one is ever nice or kind; all human conversation is opaque and halting; work colleagues are cruel and loud. Everyone is emotionally incapable and dumb. No one laughs except for the morbidly obese stalker, who cackles madly. The only attractive person is the transgender girlfriend, who has a pretty smile and smiles a lot, but cries a lot too and is vengeful.

Good drama always makes you think. I thought: Do I want to continue living?

I go to the Daily Mail website, once my guilty pleasure. High jinks of the rich and famous, randy royals, fast cars and movie stars, models and rock stars caught in the drug bust. It was great! But it seems to have taken a turn and is more about crime, grime, human sadness and degradation—child abuse, mothers drowning their babies, “Man murders family, self.” It is less a portal into life’s mindless, undeserved beauty, than a testimony to its horrors.

I go to the new “Cabaret.” Who doesn’t love “Cabaret”? It is dark, witty, painful, glamorous. The music and lyrics have stood the test of time. The story’s backdrop: The soft decadence of Weimar is being replaced by the hard decadence of Nazism.

It is Kander and Ebb’s masterpiece, revived again and again. And this revival is hideous. It is ugly, bizarre, inartistic, fundamentally stupid. Also obscene but in a purposeless way, without meaning.

I had the distinct feeling the producers take their audience to be distracted dopamine addicts with fractured attention spans and no ability to follow a story. They also seemed to have no faith in the story itself, so they went with endless pyrotechnics. This is “Cabaret” for the empty-headed. Everyone screams. The songs are slowed, because you might need a moment to take it in. Almost everyone on stage is weirdly hunched, like a gargoyle, everyone overacts, and all of it is without art.

On the way in, staffers put stickers on the cameras of your phone, “to protect our intellectual property,” as one said.

It isn’t an easy job to make the widely admired Eddie Redmayne unappealing, but by God they did it. As he’s a producer I guess he did it, too. He takes the stage as the Emcee in a purple leather skirt with a small green cone on his head and appears further on as a clown with a machine gun and a weird goth devil. It is all so childish, so plonkingly empty.

Here is something sad about modern artists: They are held back by a lack of limits.

Bob Fosse, the director of the classic 1972 movie version, got to push against society’s limits and Broadway’s and Hollywood’s prohibitions. He pushed hard against what was pushing him, which caused friction; in the heat of that came art. Directors and writers now have nothing to push against because there are no rules or cultural prohibitions, so there’s no friction, everything is left cold, and the art turns in on itself and becomes merely weird.

Fosse famously loved women. No one loves women in this show. When we meet Sally Bowles, in the kind of dress a little girl might put on a doll, with heavy leather boots and harsh, garish makeup, the character doesn’t flirt, doesn’t seduce or charm. She barks and screams, angrily.

Really it is harrowing. At one point Mr. Redmayne dances with a toilet plunger, and a loaf of Italian bread is inserted and removed from his anal cavity. I mentioned this to my friend, who asked if I saw the dancer in the corner masturbating with a copy of what appeared to be “Mein Kampf.”

That’s what I call intellectual property!

In previous iterations the Kit Kat Club was a hypocrisy-free zone, a place of no boundaries, until the bad guys came and it wasn’t. I’m sure the director and producers met in the planning stage and used words like “breakthrough” and “a ‘Cabaret’ for today,” and “we don’t hide the coming cruelty.” But they do hide it by making everything, beginning to end, lifeless and grotesque. No innocence is traduced because no innocence exists.

How could a show be so frantic and outlandish and still be so tedious? It’s almost an achievement.

And for all that there is something smug about it, as if they’re looking down from some great, unearned height.

I left thinking, as I often do now on seeing something made ugly: This is what purgatory is going to be like. And then, no, this is what hell is going to be like—the cackling stalker, the pale sociopath, Eddie Redmayne dancing with a plunger.

Why does it all bother me?

Because even though it isn’t new, uglification is rising and spreading as an artistic attitude, and it can’t be good for us. Because it speaks of self-hatred, and a society that hates itself, and hates life, won’t last. Because it gives those who are young nothing to love and feel soft about. Because we need beauty to keep our morale up.

Because life isn’t merde, in spite of what our entertainment geniuses say.

 

MOST POPULAR
11 ACRES ROAD, KELLYVILLE, NSW

This stylish family home combines a classic palette and finishes with a flexible floorplan

35 North Street Windsor

Just 55 minutes from Sydney, make this your creative getaway located in the majestic Hawkesbury region.

Related Stories
Lifestyle
Global Emissions From Electricity Set to Fall Even as Power Demand Climbs, IEA Predicts
By GIULIA PETRONI 29/01/2024
Money
Sam Altman’s Counter-Rebellion Leaves OpenAI Leadership Hanging in the Balance
By Berber Jin 20/11/2023
Money
Australian wages grow at fastest pace since 2009
By Bronwyn Allen 22/02/2024
0
    Your Cart
    Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop