for those who don't click through, the catch:

Of the 173 different ecological regions scientists have mapped around the world, fewer than 100 have greater than 17% of their land protected, the scientists estimated. Regions that are primarily ice and rock – polar and alpine landscapes – are significantly overrepresented in the catalog of protected areas. That’s not a big surprise, since those regions are often less attractive for human settlement or exploitation by farming or other activities. By contrast, deserts, woodlands, grasslands and temperate forests all fall below the 30% target.

Then there is the question of whether land that’s conserved on paper is really being protected.

The new research points to the potential gains that can be made, particularly with the recognition of the conservation potential of these OECMs. But “conserving 30% of land and seas is not sufficient on its own,” said Heather Bingham, a co-author who heads the Protected Planet Initiative. “The target also calls for these areas to be managed effectively for positive biodiversity outcomes, and to be placed where they will have the greatest impact on biodiversity.”

O’Neill, et. al. “Global conservation area coverage substantially exceeds current estimates.” Nature. Oct. 14, 2026.

Image: Based on tjhunt/iStock.com. ©Anthropocene Magazine

also, it's not the point, but does the image credit being "based on" a stock image mean that they've run it through gen ai, on an article about conservation? hopefully not & it just means a human edited it 🤞🫣

stop slop

The number in this story that's bigger than seven-to-ten is 86 percent. The gillnet closure drops from about 4,300 square miles to about 600, and the satellite monitoring that would make any boundary real doesn't kick in for another 12 months. Smaller zone, later enforcement, same nets.

The read I'd push back on is "too late." Once a species is filed as already lost, cutting the net ban starts to look like mercy toward 17,000 people who need the shrimp, and the protected water starts to look like the cruelty. That's how a label does the killing: it doesn't have to catch the animal, it just has to make the net look reasonable.

Seven to ten porpoises is not a lost cause. It's a live claim on the water. The compensation talks are the part worth following, because the money decides how many nets go back in.

(I write about exactly this, sea creatures and the labels that kill them: https://telegra.ph/Read-Wrong-Ten-Sea-Creatures-10-18 )

"Guano mining" sounds like PR speak for "shit scooping".

Phew... for a minute I thought it would be an invasive species wreaking havoc across the country

ironic

I can help impregnate them if need be

That lake was pretty much as far north as you can go in Canada at the northern end of Ellesmere Island.

natives people doing it in the traditional method without modern technology. I could see. anything else. common.

I don't approve of killing either of them, but at least cows aren't endangered (or close to being so).

Fin whales, the primary target of Iceland’s whaling industry, are classified ⁠by the International Union for Conservation of Nature as vulnerable.

Norway and Japan also commercially hunt fin whales.

Great to hear. If they do it, Norway should follow too.

Iceland, Japan and Norway are the only ones with commercial whaling industries. Greenland, Canada, Russia, US and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines have aboriginal whaling permits. The Faroe Islands claim to do it for that reason too, but it is also not commercial.

This doesn't further the conversation, I know, but how in the blue applesauce fuck is there still whaling? Did people not see the documentary Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home?!

Isnt whaling also legal in the faroe islands and greenland?

But one can be ended much more easily than the other.

I'm of 2 minds. On the one hand killing whales is fucking insane. On the other hand, killing like a hundred thousand cows a minute is also insane.

One isn't better than the other.

I believe there is a Moa sensible animal...

Ok.

But.

If we CAREFULLY introduce them … eventually they’ll potentially evolve into a carnivorous variant that eats the rats.

And then ????

Dinosaurs

As I recall it, these ground-based parrots have no natural predators, so when rats (and whatever else) got introduced to their territory, there was a horrific toll.

Even in remote areas without lots of industrial farming activity I can't help but notice a (anecdotal, I must admit) reduction in small birds, especiall sparrows, and an increase in mosquito numbers. But yeah, keep on ploughing thousands of hectares just for grain, it's going to work out just great!

Climate change, pesticides and human activity will irreversible impact the entire ecosystem. Even if we stop producing excess CO2 today, the die has been cast.

:)

That's because, while billions of us keeping taking shits everywhere, otters will always give a shit. Little, quizzical ones, but still.

Haha surprisingly they are not too rare in my city. I would guess it has to be one of the healthiest populations of any urban area. I don't see them too often but I see their poop a lot.