Eliminating plastic pollution, reducing pesticide use by two-thirds,...(...)... among the targets in a new draft of a Paris-style UN agreement on biodiversity loss.

That’s not in fact true. From the UN document itself:

Reduce pollution from all sources to levels that are not harmful to biodiversity and ecosystem functions and human health, including by reducing nutrients lost to the environment by at least half, and pesticides by at least two thirds and eliminating the discharge of plastic waste.

It is the pesticide runoff which is to be reduced, not the use of pesticides. It is possible to accuse us of pedantry here but when discussing plans to rule the world we do think such details are important.

The little bit that amuses though is this:

Goal C

The benefits from the utilization of genetic resources are shared fairly and equitably, with a substantial increase in both monetary and non-monetary benefits shared, including for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.

Milestone C.1

The share of monetary benefits received by providers, including holders of traditional knowledge, has increased.

The logic here is that if in those rainforests someone discovers something like quinine again then the government of the forest should receive oodles of cash. About which, well, OK, maybe?

It’s just that this seems to rather conflict with the other current UN insistences that those covid vaccines must be delivered free, without patent restrictions, to all.

Which does seem to be the wrong way around. Those genetic resources, that biodiversity and so on, those are things that already exist. There is therefore no need to provide incentives to bring them into existence. The vaccines did not exist a year back - maybe 18 months - and the necessary vaccines for whatever next escapes from a laboratory do not as yet. Therefore some system of incentives to create them was needed, is and will be.

Yet the UN insistence is that everyone had better cough up to create incentives where none are needed, should not have to where they are. Which does seem to be alarmingly the wrong way around.

Perhaps this idea of running the world by committee isn’t quite the way to do it?