AD READER: This episode of the sweaty penguin is brought to you by alien abductions. Tired of flightless cows? Try alien abductions today.

ETHAN: World leaders are currently gathered in Montreal for the 15th un biodiversity conference or cop 15 working toward a global treaty to help stave off mass extinctions mitigate climate change and conserve economically important natural resources for decades to come. You know, everything from tigers to whale sharks, to those annoying birds that gets stuck on my butt every time I go for a hike. Seriously does natural selection not weed out obnoxious brats. I mean, I’m a conservation fan. But burrs either be nice or be extinct. Stop poking holes and all my sweatpants. But there’s one notable absence from this effort and I think we need to single them out today. Happy Friday. I’m Ethan Brown. And this is tip of the iceberg where I will break down some environmental news and then answer a question from our listeners on the air submit questions via Patreon email or social media patron questions go to the front of the line. So sign up at patreon.com/the Sweaty penguin. 

ETHAN: This sweaty penguin is presented by purulent promise a public media initiative from the WNET group in New York reporting on the issues and solutions around climate change. You can learn more at pds.org/peril and promise.

ETHAN: Yeah, it’s the United States. We are sort of involved in the conference. And we have been a part of global biodiversity discussions. But what we haven’t done is ratified the 1992 Treaty that established the United Nations Convention on biodiversity. This is the global legal instrument that assembles countries for these biodiversity negotiations. It’s sort of like when college classes went back to in person, but that one kid was still home and joining via zoom. But then your professor put everyone in groups for an activity, and they just had to sit there. Like, technically they’re not absent. But are they really there? And why do they have a mask on when they’re alone in their bedroom? Given that I’m in the United States, and two thirds of our listeners are in the United States. The details of the conference itself are honestly less pertinent to us than the fact that we’re not in the room. We’ve declined to provide our voice, our leadership and our deep fried twinkies on a stick. So we’re going to discuss some of the misconceptions about the UN Convention on biodiversity and what US involvement would mean for us and the rest of the world. 

ETHAN: All the time. I hear people express the following concern. Why should the United States work to help the environment if other countries won’t? Seeing as issues of climate change, pollution and biodiversity loss? No, no borders. That concern is valid and important. It’s the same reason you should never split chores with roommates just live in filth, you’re better off. 

ETHAN: But other countries share that exact concern about us. And in the case of biodiversity, they may have more reason to be concerned. Brazil, the world’s most biodiverse country and home to the majority of the Amazon rainforest ratified the Convention, despite local incentives to clear forests for cattle ranching and crop farming, which you can learn more about and our beef and soy episodes. Indonesia, the world’s second most biodiverse country, home to 18 WWF global 200 eco regions 566 national parks, and endangered orangutans. Sumatran tigers and rhinos ratified the Convention, despite local incentives to convert land, which you can learn about in our Ranga, tan and palm oil episodes. Other parties to the Convention include India, Australia, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, and China, who is not only a member but the leader at COP 15. Even the United Kingdom is a member and they don’t have any animals unless you count really annoying soccer fans. In fact, the only country in the world that has not ratified the Convention is the United States. 

ETHAN: Seeing that the Brazil’s Indonesia’s and China’s of the world have ratified this convention. It is strange that the United States would it not After all, the United States already has an impressive national park system, plenty of environmental policies in line with the goals of the convention and the 10 highest biodiversity rating in the world. Plus, you know, we have eagles, which are cool apparently. For generations, conservation has been a common interest between Democrats and Republicans. Recent noteworthy laws with biodiversity protections include the great american outdoors Act passed by the Trump administration and the inflation Reduction Act passed by the Biden administration. Each party has its own approach to the issue, but both clearly value it. The only thing Americans agree upon more than conservation is how bad Porsches outfits and White Lotus are, seriously, can you wear something normal once. And since we’re already prioritizing conservation at home, we have even more reason to ratify the convention and assert ourselves as a world leader on biodiversity. 

ETHAN: Some expressed concern that the treaty would threaten us sovereignty, but these concerns are unfounded. According to Article Three of the convention, states have the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies and quote, so yeah, if you’re concerned about sovereignty, you’re basically alleging that a legal document is lying to you, which will, I guess could be the case with the iTunes terms and conditions no one would ever know. But otherwise, I really don’t see that being a possibility. After all, every country has to scroll down, pick the images with stop signs and check off I’m not a robot before signing. Furthermore, ratifying the convention would give the United States a spotlight at future negotiations, allowing us more influence and power over global biodiversity agreements. 

ETHAN: Others have suggested that the treaty would commit the United States to handing over money or intellectual property rights to other nations. But that’s not true either. The agreement requires that any transfer of genetic technology to poor nations must adhere to IP rights in wealthier nations. And as for money, this particular treaty has no financial requirements. Other treaties forged at UN biodiversity conferences could bring a financial commitment. But again, the United States should be in the room negotiating a fair deal to protect global biodiversity without becoming the world’s sugar daddy. Or we could be the world SugarDaddy assuming pictures of a map of Italy qualify as feet pics. If even one person gets that joke, I’m calling it a success. But we should be part of this right? Not spectating while our allies and adversaries lament our lack of leadership and consider if they should even bother with us with this important conservation work. 

ETHAN: Since environmental issues no no borders, the United States has every incentive to ensure countries find common ground forge agreements and make progress. For climate change. The Amazon rainforest alone has absorbed about 1.7 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide more than it has emitted in the past 20 years. And if better conserved, that number would skyrocket for our health. 25% of drugs used in modern medicine are derived from rainforest plants. 70% of cancer drugs are natural or synthetic products inspired by nature. And on the flip side, human encroachment into the natural world brings us into contact with diseases such as COVID-19. For the economy, over half the world’s GDP is highly or moderately dependent on nature. And every dollar spent on nature restoration leads to over $9 in economic benefits. And any hunters fishers, eco tourists, hikers or people named rain, need no reminder that aside from human benefits, nature is pretty spectacular on its own too. Except volcanoes, not a fan of Earth farts.

ETHAN: Look, biodiversity negotiations like climate change are really challenging. I could have done a whole episode on how protected land policy has historically infringed on the Rights of Indigenous communities, or how businesses are interested in purchasing biodiversity offsets but we don’t really know how to manage it, or just how biodiversity is so important for climate change. But from the American perspective, it’s hard to talk about much else without starting with the fact that we’re not really in the room. And I try to give you the pros and cons of any policy. This is one where I have yet to find a car. It’s just joining the convention. It’s not committing anything that we don’t already do. So we’ll see how this conference goes. It’s too late to ratify the treaty for this one. But for the sake of our wildlife, climate, economy and international standing, hopefully the United States can play a bigger part in negotiations to come. I know we love being quirky in America, but like Porsches outfits, sometimes it’s okay to not stir up global controversy

AD READER: is your farm too idyllic? Are you sick and tired of your neighbors’ crop circles getting all the attention? Then alien abductions are an out of this world innovation for you? Why do the back breaking work of transporting your cows on a truck when a UFO can levitate them for you? Look no further for signs of interstellar intelligent life and make it yours today with three simple payments of 9999 alien abductions call today and receive a free probe. 

ETHAN: The sweaty penguin is presented by peril and promise a public media initiative from the WNET group in New York reporting on the issues and solutions around climate change. You can learn more at pbs.org/peril and promise

ETHAN: Welcome back to tip of the iceberg. It’s time for Ask Me Anything where our listeners get a chance to ask me any environmental questions they may have submit questions on our Patreon email or social media questions from patrons go to the front of the line. So be sure to sign up today at patreon.com/this Sweaty penguin. 

ETHAN: Today’s ask me anything comes from Ben cope, who asks, What do you make of the iPATs formula?

ETHAN: Thanks so much for the question, Ben, if you’re not familiar, the IPADs formula is an equation that’s supposed to measure the environmental impact of any given society. The I stands for impact. And the idea is that impact equals population times affluence times technology. In other words, the amount of people times the consumption per person times the impact per unit of consumption equals the overall impact. A little hard to explain over audio, but that’s okay. Because to answer your question, I’m not a big fan of the iPad formula anyway. 

ETHAN: Now I get how if you wanted to use the formula purely for informational purposes, just to calculate a society’s environmental impact, sure, it might work. But if we try to use it to forge environmental progress, we quickly run into problems because population affluence and technology are not independent of each other. For example, as population goes up, affluence will go down. For better or worse, a lot of population growth in the world is seen in developing countries which consume less, and studies show people with less wealth often end up having more kids. And with technology in order to improve on technology and create stuff with lower impact. We need more people out there innovating. So a higher population can then reduce impact from technology. I don’t know how all these things cancel out. But it’s not as simple as Oh, if there were less people, we’d have less of an impact on the environment. 

ETHAN: And like I’ve said before, acting as if overpopulation is the cause of our environmental woes creates a lot of problems of its own. I’ve talked before about the 1981 child policy in China, which led to forced abortions, the confiscation of children by authorities, and a horrifying resurgence of female infanticide to the point that by 2016, China had 30 million more men than women. But it also completely ignores the idea that humans can develop sustainably. I think iPad misses this to the environment regenerates all the time. One fish can lay 1000 eggs, one Appleseed can plant a whole new tree. If we consume at the pace that the environment regenerates, which I’ll tell you isn’t as big of an undertaking as it might sound, then we can theoretically live with no impact. I think that’s pretty cool. And the more we blame overpopulation, the further we get from embracing that possibility. 

ETHAN: Before I go, I’m so glad you bring this up, Ben, because we actually did an episode on population growth Episode 87, if you want to check it out one of my favorite interviews ever with Dr. Jenn shuba. And it’s especially relevant right now, because on November 15, the world population cracked 8 billion. In the rough draft of the script I received, there was a breakdown of iPad. And I took it out because I didn’t think it was necessary for the episode. But I was really sad because I think one of my favorite jokes I’ve ever come across and one of our scripts was in that section. So I’m going to tell it to you now. It’s not going to be funny out of context, but I just had to get it out. Ready? Knock knock. Who’s there? I pat. I pat who? I pat you down. This is the TSA. What it’s funny

ETHAN: Well, I tried. But thanks so much for the question, Ben. And thanks to all of you who listen to tip of the iceberg. Take two minutes help out the show and get a shout out at the end of the show. By leaving a five star rating and a review on Apple or podcast addict or join our patreon@patreon.com slash the sweaty penguin. You get merch bonus content and your questions moved to the front of the line for tip of the iceberg. This sweaty penguin is presented by peril and promise a public media initiative from the WMC group in New York, reporting on the issues and solutions around climate change. You can learn more at pbs.org/peril and promise. The opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the host and guests. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of peril and promise or the WNET group. Thank you all for listening. And we’ll be back next week with a deep dive on menstrual products.