How to build a sustainable blue economy that works for people and nature

 The Economist world ocean summit has always billed itself as a forum to focus on ocean health and sustainability. But when I first started attending the summit in 2012,which is online summit industry heavyweights were largely focused on how to extract more short-term value from the ocean economy. Sustainability was still seen as a side issue worthy, perhaps, but not essential.  When WW

F sounded the alarm in 2015 about the value at risk in the ocean economy US$2.5 trillion a year due to destructive practices and climate change, industry and policy types took note. Suddenly, the turtle huggers were speaking the language of banks and business risks, returns and natural capital in the form of mangroves, coral reefs and other habitats that do double duty as coast-defending infrastructure. Since then, we have relentlessly insisted that we must build a sustainable blue economy anything less actively undermines the well-being of both people and the planet. This week’s Economist World Ocean Summit is billed as the pre-eminent platform to debate challenges, share strategies and mobilize action to build a sustainable ocean economy. It promises opportunities to “explore the role the ocean plays in tackling climate change, enhancing biodiversity, protecting coastal communities, and restoring ecosystems.” We’re talking the talk. Now we must walk the walk.

Envisioning ocean ecosystems with people at the center

For as long as people have dwelled on coasts, we have been shaping ocean ecosystems. But for most of my career in ocean conservation, people were seen as separate from ocean ecosystems. Or, if we’re being honest, people were simply the problem. This bifurcated worldview, with people separate from nature, has pushed the ocean, climate and biodiversity to their very limits, while poverty, hunger and inequality still plague billions. I think it’s fair to say that worldview was woefully myopic. We need to correct our vision to recognize the intrinsic links between people and nature, the ocean and climate. Repairing the widespread damage to the ocean’s diversity and rebuilding the ocean’s life-support capacity requires targeted policies and investments to strengthen the resilience of coastal communities. Bringing communities into the center of global, regional and local efforts to build a sustainable blue economy is ethically the right and just approach. It is also simply essential if practical and effective interventions to deliver conservation are to succeed. Many coastal areas and small islands in the global South come under the stewardship of communities that are struggling with food security, viable livelihoods, health, education and safety. Expecting these same communities to deliver conservation without development assistance and the necessary investment to facilitate the trade-offs required is both unwise and unfair. Taking an equity and human rights approach to environmental issues is therefore fundamental if we are to achieve inclusive and resilient economic development. There is an ocean of opportunity for a nature-positive approach based on clean energy production and shipping, sustainable fishing and aquaculture, protecting key habitats like coral reefs, mangroves and seagrass, and creating opportunities for small-scale producers to participate fully and fairly in growing industries like seaweed farming. Marine protected areas also can be better leveraged to safeguard ocean assets, provide social dividends and underpin the blue economy. To make the most of these opportunities, we must reject certain other activities, such as deep seabed mining, oil and gas expansion, and overfishing ever deeper and farther from shore. But the debate about appropriate industries must not overshadow the most fundamental principle of a sustainable blue economy: people are at its center, and not just a few, to the exclusion of the most ocean-dependent and vulnerable. We need to see the ocean as a socio-ecological system, where principles of equity, inclusiveness and transparency, as well as ecological limits and function, underscore all aspects of decision-making.

Equity Ocean equity is about ensuring that benefits from ocean resources are available to all, respectful of traditional rights, particularly to those who are vulnerable, poor or marginalized, and that decent work is available to all. Ensuring equity requires us to embrace a broader range of values than simply economic growth in the assessment of the benefits from ocean assets. Prioritizing equity means assigning a high value to maintaining ecological functions, and providing nutritional security for vulnerable groups. Recognizing such social benefits allows assets to be reframed in terms of providing public health values and food security values, leading to a more holistic policy discourse around their allocation. Equity also means generating quality jobs and access to financial opportunities. This should extend to the diversification of livelihoods and income, building resilience to unanticipated changes.

Inclusivity

A key aim of inclusivity should be to strengthen the resilience of vulnerable populations to climate change, disaster impacts and environmental degradation. This means building social and institutional resilience, reducing poverty, delivering social protection programs and ensuring coming climate disasters don’t simply leave the poor poorer. There should be a focus on building women’s resilience to climate change and disaster impacts through greater access to technologies and finance, diversification of livelihoods, and increased participation in women-led solutions, among others. We must also pay particular regard to vulnerable and marginalized groups, focusing on youth, the elderly, and addressing disability inclusion.

Transparency

Public goods need to be managed in the public interest. Coastal habitats and coastal and ocean fish populations provide a range of protective and nourishing functions, which need to be optimized under an equitable and inclusive system. Today, much of the process of exploiting, distributing and profiting from the ocean’s resources is opaque. Communities have no seat at the table. There needs to be full transparency about economic activities and political decision-making involving the coastal zone. With proper political will, we can ensure taxes and fees are paid that properly value the resource used or impact, and close the loopholes that currently exist. When it comes to seafood, consumers are increasingly discerning and import markets are increasingly rigorous in requiring full transparency and traceability for products, with the goal of flushing illegal products, and products associated with human rights abuses, out of the system. Bottom line: The ocean is a public domain, and fair and sustainable governance requires we all know what is occurring across 70% of the Earth’s surface.

From Talk to Action

Each iteration of the World Ocean Summit has advanced the discussion about the centrality of the ocean to human well-being and economic development. This year, WWF colleagues are on panels focused on the investment tools needed to build the sustainable blue economy I’ve outlined above, and how nature-based solutions can mitigate climate change. Looking at the agenda, we clearly know the topics and issues we must tackle. When the week is over, I challenge the thousands of participants to turn a summit agenda into an action agenda, with people at the center of the sustainable blue economy.

Political Polarization, Francis Fukuyama and freedom to hate in the age of Trump

 

Somebody wondered the other day “how did we become so polarized? How did we get to the point of these incredibly heightened emotions where there is so much anger and hate?” After pondering it some I came up with two different but connected takes on it.

The first is more general and it has to do with humanity’s deep-seated need for struggle and passionate action and expression. We are built to overcome obstacles, to struggle against adversity and to in doing so improve our condition. Our impulse to struggle is innate but when Society reaches a point where there is no real reason for existential struggle, that instinct has “nowhere to go” and we still want to struggle nevertheless. Francis Fukuyama foresaw this 30 years ago: “Experience suggests that if men cannot struggle on behalf of a just cause because that just cause was victorious in an earlier generation, then they will struggle against the just cause. They will struggle for the sake of struggle. They will struggle, in other words, out of a certain boredom: for they cannot imagine living in a world without struggle. And if the greater part of the world in which they live is characterized by peaceful and prosperous liberal democracy, then they will struggle against that peace and prosperity, and against democracy.” This general state gave rise to the heightened emotions of the Trump era because the emergence of Trump as a politician gave people an easy object of hate after a long time of not having a convenient and easy target for exaggerated emotions. Trump emerged after 8 years of Obama presidency which were emotionally muted. Even if you really disliked Obama’s personality or actions, most were really careful in expressing that as hate because that would smack of racism, and very few (thankfully) are happy to self-identify as racist. If you liked Obama and disliked intensely the conservatives, the figures they put forth in opposition to Obama were not an easy object of hate  McCain and Romney. One a war hero and the other a mild-mannered Mormon. You could disagree with McCain or Romney but it was hard to summon real emotion about either of them. And then came Trump with his largely

disagreeable personality almost designed to offend. The hate exploded   it was once again OK to hate and an entire generation of people in their 20s, who by my observation comprise most of the participants of angry protests on the left, experienced the intoxicating effect of being able to be really nasty to somebody publicly and joined in that by millions of others. People love to hate, they hate the opposing sports team and their supporters, they hate the rival high school and they hate certain real housewives they can’t really stand. This hate met an equal and opposite reaction people who did not necessarily love Trump but were in favor of conservative policies reacted to hate directed at them as “Trumpsters” by developing their own extreme emotions. If you are going to dismiss my views out of hand and treat me as you would a fan of a sports team you hate then I feel no obligation to be reasonable towards you. You started first. And that is how it went. So that is at least some of what happened.

A Bipartisan Approach to Boosting U.S. Competitiveness Through the Department of Energy

Congress, just in one a generation, represents a valuable open door to help Yankees seriousness and success. Moon. In its fast-paced history, the U. is not lacking in meaningful mechanical achievements. More importantly, this multitude of achievements traces its foundations to extensive government funding.

Congress provides guidance to expand during this legacy by reviving the agencies' responsibilities for developing seriousness. The Senate passed the US Competition and Innovation Act (USICA) (68 - 32) in Gregorian calendar month 2021 and with it the House of Representatives to the United States. COMPETE Act of 2022 (America COMPETE) in February 2022. A package of seriousness should have a major impact in maintaining the Extrude environment by birthing and rejuvenating
fundamental tasks in marketing, building and protecting the search community, which together create a great Achieving a form of simple electricity, power provide substantial dynamic advances.

As Congress works to reconcile the House and Senate bills, BPC recommends the following bipartisan provisions be included in the final bill:

·         Native Clean Energy Innovation Program (Sec.10642 of America COMPITE)

·         • Institution for Energy Security and Innovation (Sec.2528 of USICA und Sec.10751 of America COMPITE)• Boost Technology Transfer (America COMPETES Title VI, Subtitle C)

·          • Strong Popularity of DOE Sports to Boost Key Regions for Innovation (USICA Sec. 2117 and America COMPETES Redivision B, Title I)

 

Increasing innovation, invention, and entrepreneurship in a diverse array of regions

Clean energy investments can create economic opportunities for Americans, in addition to significant climate benefits. However, these opportunities will only be realized if energy and climate programs are designed at the onset with the intention of benefitting the American people. Currently, innovation is concentrated in just a few key cities – a 2019 report co-authored by Brookings and ITIF finds that from 2005 to 2017, just five metro areas accounted for more than 90% of the nation’s innovation sector growth. As we consider how to improve the nation’s competitiveness, Congress should ensure that Americans across the country benefit from the wealth creation, economic development, and employment opportunities that such investments are certain to bring.

In the final legislation, Congress should include the Regional Clean Energy Innovation Program (Sec. 10642 of America COMPETES), a bipartisan provision that would authorize DOE to invest in regions across the country to promote innovation clusters dedicated to making the important advances needed in clean energy.

Building on existing federal programs that support commercialization

Nonprofit energy foundation

Expansion of development, creation and operation in one of the districts are showcase projects. The clean energy companies are starting to open doors for the Yankees, but the big environmental benefits. The first is to support the American public. Modernization is currently only being tapped in one of the city's key areas: a 2019 record of
, written jointly by Brookings and ITIF, shows that from 2005 to 2017 only five underground areas have grown more than 90%. the improvement of the developing region of the country.As we recall the simplest way to work in the country's intensity, Congress must ensure that the country's Americans favor the country's wealth creation, economic turn of events, and open doors to business that such projects will certainly will bring. Completion of the ordinance will require Congress to incorporate the Regional Clean Energy Innovation Program (Sec.10642 of America COMPETES), a bipartisan partnership that will authorize DOE to allocate resources in over
districts across the country to encourage development groups that are devote to the necessities of life -great advances in simple electricity. Rise of grant agency apps to support development Greater coordination, through a nonprofit energy foundation, will ensure that the most promising U.S. energy technologies receive robust funding and support to make their way to market. Our nation needs solutions in technologies spanning from carbon capture systems, to long-duration energy storage, to clean hydrogen, to advanced nuclear reactors, and so much more, to address climate goals. DOE has the experts who understand the ins and outs of our nation’s energy system and what technologies are needed to fulfill our long-term strategy for achieving net-zero emissions. The private sector understands the commercial market, customer needs, and what technologies are most likely to succeed financially. Both sets of expertise are needed. A nonprofit foundation will enable this collaboration while sidestepping the inevitable bureaucracy of the federal government.

Commercialization programs

A competitiveness bill presents a significant opportunity to supercharge DOE commercialization programs by supporting and expanding programs housed under the OTT. This small but mighty office, with a budget of $20 million in fiscal year 2021, has significant potential to disrupt our nation’s commercialization landscape. Congress should include Energizing Technology Transfer provisions (Division B, Title VI, Subtitle C of America COMPETES) to help unlock the commercialization of critical technologies relevant to DOE’s broad mission and bolster public-private partnerships with DOE national labs through greater support for OTT programs. This includes programs to:

1. foster interest in commercialization in undergraduate students, building an entrepreneurial pipeline of diverse thinkers,
2. make it easier for entrepreneurs and small businesses to utilize DOE national lab facilities and equipment, allowing our nation’s inventors access to world-class, multi-million-dollar scientific facilities, and
3. support clean energy incubators and accelerators across the nation, providing essential services to early-stage companies and entrepreneurs to help strengthen innovation ecosystems across the nation.

Investing in a variety of technology sectors

One of the cornerstones of both the House and Senate bills is advancing U.S. competitiveness in ‘key technology focus areas’, including in artificial intelligence and machine learning, quantum information science, high performance computing, advanced manufacturing, and biotechnology. The DOE’s Office of Science is leading the nation in investments in these key areas through partnerships with universities, the national labs, and the private sector. A few examples are listed below:

• High-performance computing: The DOE’s national labs are home to several of the world’s fastest computers, which frequently beat international competitors in Japan and the China as new computers are brought online on a periodic basis. The DOE Office of Science collaborates with private sector companies to develop and build these supercomputers.

• Biotechnology: The DOE Office of Science has a long history of investing in biotechnology and bioscience, including in genomics, structural biology, and bioimaging. Notably, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines developed to combat the COVID-19 virus trace their origins to experiments performed on equipment at DOE’s Argonne National Lab.

• Quantum Information Sciences (QIS): The DOE Office of Science oversees the nation’s five National QIS Research Centers. Through this national network housed at DOE national labs and U.S. universities, DOE is poised to establish the world’s first quantum internet.

Growing these existing DOE programs with a greater focus on public-partnerships could rapidly accelerate commercialization of these key technologies. DOE has several programs to support industry-specific public-private partnerships, such as through the DOE Energy Innovation Hubs and Manufacturing USA Institutes, which bring together key stakeholders from industry, academia, and the national labs to advance technologies from the earliest stages of research to the point of commercialization. As the federal agency that spearheaded the commercialization of solar power and wind power, DOE knows how to do this, and with additional authorization, DOE can do this again. Final legislation should authorize DOE to invest in commercialization of the key technology areas (Sec. 2117 of USICA) and basic research in these key areas (Sec. Division B, Title I of America COMPETES) that are essential to our nation’s competitiveness.

Conclusion

We are at a critical moment in US future. Congress can pass legislation that would secure America’s place on the global innovation stage for years to come. The bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act showed the American people that Democrats and Republicans can come together to make investments in critical infrastructure and clean energy and essentially put a down payment on accelerating our fight against climate change. Getting a bipartisan competitiveness bill to the President’s desk would expand the federal tools available to effectively develop and commercialize clean energy technologies while securing U.S. leadership, security, and prosperity.

INDO-PAK influence each other through foreign policy

India and the Asian country like Pakistan are on the verge of joining. It's exceptional to expect them to affect coverage of locations remote from others. Perhaps this natural phenomenon of mutual interaction would not have aroused much commercial interest had these states not been systematically hostile given their emergence into an independent state. Since the same machine was cut off by this Asian nation and Pakistan from the same landmass created in

it is almost inevitable that his own circle of relatives may not be present within the foreseeable fate. be pretty rude. Long, arduous and unpleasant negotiations and disputes triggered the division of the mainland itself into states. Their rulers always remained suspicious and hostile, ever closer to each other. gift author might make some assumptions about Asian country and Asian country as parts of each other's foreign reporting. First of all, in terms of core coverage, there is an exquisite difference between India and Pakistan. Once India planned non-aligned reporting, it planned its operations in the world on a large scale and no longer needed to be forced to do so. Problems with the Asian nation, which became much weaker than the Asian nation in terms of military and financial capabilities and political status. While Pakistan continued to cover naval orientations to the West, it typically did so to counter India's naval superiority and, with the help of effective allies, to extort political concessions from India. Secondly, for foreigners of one's family from the two countries of the world, besides some distinction, there could also be a similarity in reduced prices. Pakistan is constantly dwarfed by India's length and resources; India's influence on Pakistan's foreign reporting seems much more obvious. But, as the present author is willing to point out, the result of the Asian nation in the distant places of the Asian nation, the people of one's own family, is far more remarkable than most Indians care to admit. Third, the attitude reactions of India and Pakistan in the current purpose of are basically similar, since the two are formed into half-giants through exploitation, however, completely different countries at a certain time interpret their disputes, mainly the most effective the geographical region

NON-ALIGNMENT VERSUS ALIGNMENT

The strategy of non-alignment, as it is commonly propagated with the help of the national exploitation leader, is currently not only intended to sell India's pastime, but also to serve the motive of world peace.' sand in general. The first need of the sector is peace for the simple reason that a nuclear-age world war can mean temporary and total destruction. Covering misalignment reduces fear and expands the environment of peace. It also allows a people to exercise their fair and impartial judgment on world affairs. America is learning to think for itself and behave for itself. but in addition to its safety. And a powerful one often brought about the domination of the former by the exploitation of the latter. Covering the formation of the army can also help the great powers everywhere to multiply the spheres of influence in the associated degrees by liquidating or restricting the independence of weaker partners. .if we reflect the imperatives of India's non-aligned policy (a diplomatic strategy that has the whole world as its operative subject)Peace as its ultimate goal, which

moreover fails to see India's hobbies as the elementary neighborhood of a passive global order), it is very difficult to imagine that the concern, contempt or hatred of the Asian nation played an element in its phrasing. On the contrary, when we turn to look for spring From the Asian nation's coverage of the military's rapprochement with the West, it is clear that this is the priority and distrust of the Asian nation. India's inferiority in power and status makes Pakistan realize that India can sometimes bully Pakistan and pursue a variety of its political ends. (Kashmir) and that at a reasonable point in time India could also conquer Pakistan. Pakistan directly entered into a military resource position with the US. With the best explanation to offset the superiority of the Indian Army. Pakistani newspaper articles left absolute confidence in this motivation behind Pakistan's decision to continue reporting on the formation of the army.

Factors in Indo-Pak foreign policy

negotiations between the two countries on the military pact were going on apace, Pakistani newspapers asserted quite frankly that by means of military aid, Pakistan would be able to guard itself against the perpetual menace to its security posed by India’s superior armed might. Pakistanis also expected that their policy of military alignment would encourage the United States to cut off economic aid to India and to press India for a solution of the Kashmir problem to the entire satisfaction of Pakistan. These expectations were not fulfilled, and within only a few weeks of the conclusion of the US-Pakistani military aid pact, Pakistanis started condemning the United States for not fulfilling these Pakistani expectations.3 3 The United States, they complained, was continually strengthening India’s military potentials because American economic aid enabled India to divert its own resources to military purposes. Thus, according to Pakistanis, the United States was indirectly helping India to assume an aggressive posture towards Pakistan. India, because of its rising armed might made possible largely by the ceaseless flow of US economic aid, was in no mood to make a settlement of the Kashmir and canal water problems in a way really helpful to Pakistan. Pakistanis lamented that the United States, in spite of the military alliance, was not trying to pressurize India and come to the rescue of the poor partner as against India’s Pakistan had incurred their displeasure by aligning itself with the United States, and that as a sort of reprisal they were declaring Kashmir as irrevocably a part of India. One inevitable reaction on the part of Pakistanis to the Soviet pressure was to expect outspoken support from the United States and other Western Powers on the Kashmir issue. They felt depressed, because it did not come. It should be added, however, that such attitudes may not lead to a modification of actual relations. Thus, American economic aid to India has continued despite severe Indian criticism of American military aid to Pakistan.33 Conversely, American military aid to Pakistan had not stopped because of the vehemence of Pakistani outbursts against American economic aid to India. In conclusion, may we repeat the observation made by M. S. Rajan : As long as Indo-Pakistani relations remain as bad as they have been, undoubtedly each will continue to be a factor in the other’s foreign policy and relations in different degrees.&dquo;34 India-Pakistan borders are unsettled in many places, and perhaps destined to remain unquiet for a long time. Not to speak of Kashmir and the Rank of Kutch, there are undermarketed areas in Rajasthan and also in the West Bengal-East Pakistan region. There are about 70 enclaves of East Pakistan in West Bengal, whereas the latter has more than 130 enclaves in East Pakistan.35 Mutual friendliness of a very high order alone can ensure peace along these sensitive borders. Chances of such friendliness seem more and more to recede into the background because an expansionist China is egging on Pakistan’s aggressive- ness - and this has been revealed in the Rann of Kutch incident as also in the undeclared India-Pakistan war of 1965.