Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
These conflicts, along with the environmental degradation effects of mining, exacerbate high poverty rates, which approximately 64% of the Congolese population live under. [3] Natural resource extraction and climate change are intertwined in Congo, as mining for copper and cobalt creates a biodiversity loss as green covers are cleared for ...
Social cohesion degrades and conflict and unrest become increasingly common. Technology development is high in the high-tech economy and sectors. The globally connected energy sector diversifies, with investments in both carbon-intensive fuels like coal and unconventional oil , but also low-carbon energy sources.
Antarctic interests in the late 1940s were increasing, with nations fighting over territory in the Antarctic Peninsula region.Fear of open conflict from these nations, as well as fear of Antarctica becoming involved in the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, led to the first discussions of Antarctic diplomacy and treaties. [6]
On 9 June 1994 Presidential Decision Directive NSC 26 ("United States Policy on the Arctic and Antarctic Regions") stated that U.S. policy toward Antarctica has four fundamental objectives: (1) protecting the relatively unspoiled environment of Antarctica and its associated ecosystems, (2) preserving and pursuing unique opportunities for ...
A particular case of environmental conflicts are forestry conflicts, or forest conflicts which "are broadly viewed as struggles of varying intensity between interest groups, over values and issues related to forest policy and the use of forest resources". [7] In the last decades, a growing number of these have been identified globally. [8]
The main treaty was opened for signature on 1 December 1959, and officially entered into force on 23 June 1961. [4] The original signatories were the 12 countries active in Antarctica during the International Geophysical Year (IGY) of 1957–58: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States. [1]
In both wars, context made it tricky to deal with moral challenges. What is moral in combat can at once be immoral in peacetime society. Shooting a child-warrior, for instance. In combat, eliminating an armed threat carries a high moral value of protecting your men. Back home, killing a child is grotesquely wrong.
Human–wildlife conflict has been defined by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) in 2004 as "any interaction between humans and wildlife that results in negative impacts of human social, economic or cultural life, on the conservation of wildlife populations, or on the environment". [6]