I attended a local showing of the documentary "Plastic People" last night. It's a film about the problems associated with microplastics. It is very well done, deeply disturbing, and definitely worth watching.
So this is a question for the legal and treaty-savvy among us: The UN is set up so that for treaties such as the Plastics, Biodiversity and Climate Change Treaties, states such as Saudi Arabia seem to have had the power of gatekeeping during the development stages, so that negotiations and treaty formation are stymied without their approval. I don't get this.
For instance, in the Paris Accords, was unanimity required for it to pass? And with nations who have executives who can withdraw their nation from the agreement, such as what Trump in his First Coming, and will likely happen again in his Second Coming, the Paris Accords still move ahead with or without the US.
So my question to the better versed is: why can't negotiations proceed even without the involvement of gatekeeper states like Saudi Arabia, so that all agreeing states can be signatories of an agreement to protect biodiversity/clean up plastic/reduce carbon emissions without them? I mean if a country like the US can pull its support afterwards anyway, why can't the rest of the world proceed with hammering out an agreement instead of letting a gatekeeper like Saudi Arabia grind the progress to a stop? I understand why things like the Security Council have this veto power; I don't see why this should apply to other agreements like the ones in question.
Indigenous peoples should probably be *leading* the discussion on plastic pollution, let alone being included in policy discussions. Beyond disrespectful.
That concept of Saudi Arabia as an oil corporation is very helpful.
It reminds us that many of the oil rich Middle Eastern countries were created after World War II, with leadership naturally given to the strongest families at the time.
I attended a local showing of the documentary "Plastic People" last night. It's a film about the problems associated with microplastics. It is very well done, deeply disturbing, and definitely worth watching.
So this is a question for the legal and treaty-savvy among us: The UN is set up so that for treaties such as the Plastics, Biodiversity and Climate Change Treaties, states such as Saudi Arabia seem to have had the power of gatekeeping during the development stages, so that negotiations and treaty formation are stymied without their approval. I don't get this.
For instance, in the Paris Accords, was unanimity required for it to pass? And with nations who have executives who can withdraw their nation from the agreement, such as what Trump in his First Coming, and will likely happen again in his Second Coming, the Paris Accords still move ahead with or without the US.
I've looked at the Treaties page of the United Nations and cannot make heads or tails about how they work: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/Overview.aspx?path=overview/glossary/page1_en.xml
So my question to the better versed is: why can't negotiations proceed even without the involvement of gatekeeper states like Saudi Arabia, so that all agreeing states can be signatories of an agreement to protect biodiversity/clean up plastic/reduce carbon emissions without them? I mean if a country like the US can pull its support afterwards anyway, why can't the rest of the world proceed with hammering out an agreement instead of letting a gatekeeper like Saudi Arabia grind the progress to a stop? I understand why things like the Security Council have this veto power; I don't see why this should apply to other agreements like the ones in question.
Same as it ever was. Ignorant fools snubbing those with deep knowledge.
Infuriating, absolutely, infuriating.
Indigenous peoples should probably be *leading* the discussion on plastic pollution, let alone being included in policy discussions. Beyond disrespectful.
Great read.
Thank you all st heated. But folks from all sides need to talk yo each other. Otherwise change is almost impossible.
That concept of Saudi Arabia as an oil corporation is very helpful.
It reminds us that many of the oil rich Middle Eastern countries were created after World War II, with leadership naturally given to the strongest families at the time.