Home | About | Donate

To Save Oceans and Planet, Greenpeace Backs Plan to Create Largest Protected Area on Earth


#1

To Save Oceans and Planet, Greenpeace Backs Plan to Create Largest Protected Area on Earth

Julia Conley, staff writer

"We are in desperate need for governments to come together and do what is best for these amazing ecosystems."


#2

Petition signed & sent to friends ~

One step towards E.O. Wilson’s “Half-Earth”.

It’s called self-preservation - no need for altruism here.


#3

Yes. Let them eat cake! (And fruits/vegetables)


#4

The next shoe to drop in the climate change parade of catastrophes will be the slide of massive glaciers in Antarctica into the ocean. Even with a 5-year head start of advanced notice, the number of refugees fleeing sea level rise will overwhelm international efforts to deal with the crisis.

And if the advanced warning is wrong, expect deaths in the millions. We told em’ so, but whatever.


#5

Hmm ?

Only three posts, on what I consider far and away the most important article here today.

We are still obviously very confused - including here on Common Dreams.

Edward O. Wilson is not kidding when he recommends setting aside half the Earth for nature. He is arguably the number one conservation biologist alive today - the father of island biogeography, or as it is sometimes called, insular biogeography.

The perfect storm is all linked - and addressing any one properly will necessarily involve addressing all.

Greenpeace, for example, could act as advocate in a future world which gives rights to the environment as a whole, a process which is underway, from the New Zealand River now given official legal status and standing, towards a world in which climate, the world ocean and coupled atmosphere, the soil on land, forests and deserts, mountains and valleys, etc…, are all protected, as they must be if we are to survive.

To be clear - we are not protecting the ecosystem for altruistic reasons - it is a matter of survival for homo sapiens and our evolutionary contemporary species.

If the environment is given legal standing - it will need advocates to stand on guard - something like the present day ‘Riverkeepers’ of Robert Kennedy Jr., scaled up appropriately.

This is the only economy which will work.

Greenpeace has the history, credibility and swat to be the Primo NGO on what might be a multi-stakeholder committee of environmental advocates, which would necessarily include the United Nations, individual countries, and many others.


#6

A bright news article about just one important step in trying to save the Earth from total Apocalypse–so we will not hear about it from the MSM.

(i.e. Because if it was from the MSM, they would require the critics from the Right there too-- calling Greenpeace “environmental terrorists,” just so we could all decide on whatever was the truth from their own distorted “balanced” presentation.)

Thank you CD.


#7

As great and necessary as this is, we have to remember that the boundaries of preserves won’t keep heat or acidified water out or prevent pollution. Unless we act many times faster to reduce our waste of resources and energy use tremendously, eliminate fossil fuels, reforest the planet, and transform agriculture and industry to ecological forms none of this will make any difference at all. The preserve will preserve a vast expanse of water devoid of life except jellyfish and algae.

Further, saving the parts that no one lives in and hardly anyone wants won’t do the job. We need to save critical habitats en masse even if developers, golf course builders and industrial ag. corporations want to destroy them, they contain resources that will make someone a nice profit and they’re near cities–the most convenient places to expand. Those have always been the only criteria that mattered. This will be absolutely impossible unless we act now on climate catastrophe, and plan ahead for hundreds of millions of refugees and the collapse of nations.


#8

This is a great post. Something bothered me about this article when I first read it yesterday, and you articulated it.

Delineating a certain area for conservation, masks the problem. Why shouldn’t the White River that runs through central Indiana be as protected as Antarctic waters?

If we continue to separate the sacred (and I use a religious term because there is no secular language that describes what we’re losing) from the non-sacred, then we continue on in an opiated, everything’s gonna be alright, numbness.

All life is sacred, including the gnat that buzzed between my reading light and my eyes the other night. Until we humans can internalize this attitude, life on earth will continue in its death throes. Life on earth is dying, protecting Antarctic waters is a useless act of desperation.


#9

Right back at you, thanks. I heartily endorse your use of the word ‘sacred’; it’s helped me put together a couple of connections I’ve been trying to articulate for a while. Sacredness is what we know when we’re able to connect to other beings, nature, and the universe in general. Whatever the ultimate reason/s, imbalance toward the conservative wrecks our ability to attach, and thus causes us to objectify nature, thus commodify it, thus create (among other unhealthy ways of relating) capitalism, which is the complete takeover by that one objectifying relationship mode to all of existence–the exact opposite of seeing/feeling sacredness. There’s a sort of template for attachment (the basis for all education and action, even creating the self in tandem with others). With poor attachment, we feel rage at being “cheated” out of the abilities we inherently feel should be ours. It’s like a form of autism; we can’t feel “into” other beings* and they, and even the whole universe, become like a black box–something we can only perceive the outside of—as an object. Once that happens, the rage is projected; fear, paranoia, aggression, and the compulsion to own and control are among the results.

An OK definition of attachment: https://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/attachment

  • Reading about intersubjective psychology can also help with understanding this stuff, although it’s a hard thing to understand, itself.

Jessica Benjamin’s The Bonds of Love is good on the objectification part. Love at Goon Park: The Science of Affection is the story of Harlow’s monkeys, the tale of creating monkeys like life-in-civilization has created people. It’s also a tale of recovery, with monkey babies teaching their emotionally stunted mothers how to attach through that template. The mothers are better raising later offspring, so those later babies can teach the mothers more, and vice versa and so on.

Fortunately, it only takes one generation to begin to heal those crucial abilities to connect, though it will take many to completely heal our disease and integrate the sense of the sacred into culture and ways of life. First, we need to survive the climate crisis by solving the logistics of eliminating greenhouse gases and and at least some of more dire parts of the larger psycho-ecological crisis. Like Harlow’s monkeys, we can begin to heal ourselves and our relationships together, each advance into recovery taking us farther from the now-imminent destruction.

A few other thoughts you stimulated:

Psychology has created the mundane language of sacredness—attachment theory.

The preserves (sounds like jam) are not sacred, either, they’re just another, slightly and temporarily less destructive form of projection, just delineating black boxes we agree not to exploit and extract, at least not completely or right away. Like the battle over ANWR, the existence of only semi-black boxes like that absolutely enrages the right, those people who manifest the most conservative, separate aspects of our psychological system. They itch uncontrollably to control/exploit/extract/take apart… ie, destroy them.


#10

Well, you got me down a rabbit hole too. There’s a little known Scottish psychologist, Ian Suttie, who’s book The Origins of Love and Hate, was published in 1935 days after his death in his mid-thirties. He thought an infant’s primary impulse was communion with their mother. Anyone who’s seen a baby breast feed has seen the occasional little gleam that passes between a baby and mother.

Suttie was an early detractor of Freud, whose work I think describes his own twisted mind more than anything else. To me, Freud saw everything motivated by aggression and sex and did immeasurable damage to our culture through this type of reductionary view of life.

I’ve been reading Jung’s Red Book off and on for the last couple weeks and his embrace of mystery and sacredness is entirely counter to Freud. My hope is for as much Jung this century as there was Freud the last.

Having said all this, more power to Greenpeace and if their efforts lead to an abundance of krill that’s justification enough.


#11

I used to take a daily Krill supplement until I learned how it was harvested. The bottom of the seas surrounding Antarctica are dragged, scooping up organisms that anchor the entire food chain. Imagine what this does to the Antarctic ecosystem, land and marine. If you don’t want to view videos of starving penguins and seals, then take action on this issue immediately.