Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework
- Agreed to by nearly 200 nations on Dec. 19, 2022 in the city of Montreal, Province of Quebec, Canada.
- The Agreement consists of four groups of goals with 23 targets for 2030 (Only 8 short years away!! Note that the Climate Change "Tipping Point" is generally agreed to be around Jan. 1, 2031).
- The agreement calls for:
1. at least 30 percent of the world’s lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and oceans to be placed under conservation by 2030;
2. an additional 30 percent or more of areas with degraded ecosystems are to be put “under effective restoration.”
3. to achieve its goals, a US$700 billion per year “biodiversity finance gap” must be met;
4. by 2030, US$500 billion per year in subsidies that “harm biodiversity” currently going to agriculture, industrial fishing, and oil and gas extraction is to be redirected to what are termed as more sustainable practices;
5. an additional US$200 billion per year is to be raised from public, private, and philanthropic sources for national biodiversity strategies;
6. at least US$30 billion in annual aid is to flow to the developing world by 2030.
Analysis 1
This massive effort, and substantial societal change, are the only way to save the Earth as we know it, and its plethora of species (Many of which have already died off due to lack of protection from human activity). It would appear that it will significantly affect the way the World Economy functions, and the economy's functioning within nations. A collective effort is absolutely necessary to save the diverse life of all kinds on the planet.
Analysis 2
Dan McTeague, president of Canadians for Affordable Energy, said the agreement brokered under the auspices of the United Nations threatens liberty and prosperity.
“This has nothing to do with environment—this is about control of society and population. And this is also dramatic and significant interference into the sovereign conduct of affairs of any nation, and it ought to be rejected,” McTeague told The Epoch Times. "[COP15] was a ridiculous idea in terms of how to destroy the ability for people to make ends meet, more importantly, how they’re going to feed themselves”.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/cop-15...&utm_content=3
Question for CT'ers:
1. What comments do you have to make on each analysis?
2. Bottom line, which analysis seems the better one?
~ Bob A (T-S/P)
- Agreed to by nearly 200 nations on Dec. 19, 2022 in the city of Montreal, Province of Quebec, Canada.
- The Agreement consists of four groups of goals with 23 targets for 2030 (Only 8 short years away!! Note that the Climate Change "Tipping Point" is generally agreed to be around Jan. 1, 2031).
- The agreement calls for:
1. at least 30 percent of the world’s lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and oceans to be placed under conservation by 2030;
2. an additional 30 percent or more of areas with degraded ecosystems are to be put “under effective restoration.”
3. to achieve its goals, a US$700 billion per year “biodiversity finance gap” must be met;
4. by 2030, US$500 billion per year in subsidies that “harm biodiversity” currently going to agriculture, industrial fishing, and oil and gas extraction is to be redirected to what are termed as more sustainable practices;
5. an additional US$200 billion per year is to be raised from public, private, and philanthropic sources for national biodiversity strategies;
6. at least US$30 billion in annual aid is to flow to the developing world by 2030.
Analysis 1
This massive effort, and substantial societal change, are the only way to save the Earth as we know it, and its plethora of species (Many of which have already died off due to lack of protection from human activity). It would appear that it will significantly affect the way the World Economy functions, and the economy's functioning within nations. A collective effort is absolutely necessary to save the diverse life of all kinds on the planet.
Analysis 2
Dan McTeague, president of Canadians for Affordable Energy, said the agreement brokered under the auspices of the United Nations threatens liberty and prosperity.
“This has nothing to do with environment—this is about control of society and population. And this is also dramatic and significant interference into the sovereign conduct of affairs of any nation, and it ought to be rejected,” McTeague told The Epoch Times. "[COP15] was a ridiculous idea in terms of how to destroy the ability for people to make ends meet, more importantly, how they’re going to feed themselves”.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/cop-15...&utm_content=3
Question for CT'ers:
1. What comments do you have to make on each analysis?
2. Bottom line, which analysis seems the better one?
~ Bob A (T-S/P)
Comment