16 ms·
Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'
- hoodoof 10y agox
- castratikron 10y agoYeah, good riddance!
- hoodoof 10y agox
- cyberferret 10y ago>I really hate the environment. It doesn't really exist If only they could tow the reef outside of the environment... (Hat tip to John Clarke - RIP)
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Stratoscope 10y agoFor those who haven't seen it, cyberferret is referring to this interview with an Australian government official about an environmental disaster: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcU4t6zRAKg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcU4t6zRAKg Edit: Spoiler alert below... ;-)
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- dang 10y agoWould you please not post inflammatory political rhetoric to HN? We're trying for thoughtful discussion here. Obviously it's hard to have thoughtful discussion about urgent issues, but comments like what you're posting only make things worse.
- hoodoof 10y agoX
- dang 10y agoYour comments were obviously sarcastic, but that doesn't make them ok. It's the venting indignation part that doesn't help. HN is something of an ecosystem in its own right; there's no need to damage one in defence of another. Nothing good comes of it.
- dvtv75 9y agoSometimes satire and sarcasm are the best way to draw attention to the absurdity of a given position.
- dang 9y agoThe point isn't that sarcasm is always bad, but that it doesn't make an otherwise bad comment good. And there is a glut of sarcasm on the internet already, so one can afford to be a bit fussy about quality.
- interfixus 10y agoHahaha thank you for this satire. Haven't laughed this hard Somebody apparently enjoyed the posting. The rest of us shall never know why, for it is gone now.
- cyberferret 10y agoI really wonder if the 'job creation' that goes with the mining and dredging they want to do to the dying reef will counterbalance the estimated 100,000 jobs in the tourism industry that are predicted to disappear once the reef is completely dead and no one wants to visit any more. Then again, I guess it is not really about the jobs per se, but rather the $$$ kickback in royalties and 'spotters fees' that are paid into political campaign funds for passing the wrong bills through parliament.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Oletros 10y agoA good example of Poe's Law?
- fersho311 10y agoHahaha thank you for this satire. Haven't laughed this hard
- orschiro 10y agoThe sad fact is that even these devastating developments do not make us change systemically to the extent required to counterfeit them.
- H4CK3RM4N 10y agoSadly I can't remember the last time we had any real action to protect the reef, and our current government is all too willing to put businesses above the environment.
- flukus 10y agoMost of the damage is part of climate change in general, so real action to protect the reef involves the world drastically cutting carbon emissions. Meanwhile, we can't even prevent things like this happening right next to the reef: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-10/abbot-point-coal-terminal-released-into-wetlands/8430934 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-10/abbot-point-coal-termi...
- H4CK3RM4N 10y agoI was trying to subtly hint at how absolutely fucking unacceptable it is that something like the Abbot Point coal terminal was approved. How hard is it?
- Diederich 10y agoIf I remember correctly, human CO2 emissions has been flat for the past couple of years. The reason CO2 is going up, at an increasing rate, is largely because the biosphere's ability to absorb CO2 is diminished. > the world drastically cutting carbon emissions I believe the grim truth is this: the world's transformation would continue for a long time even if humans stopped producing CO2 tomorrow. Preparations for the inevitable should be our focus.
- catmanjan 10y agoI don't think the average Australian cares, at least not enough for it to influence the way they act/vote. Of course if you ask anyone on the street if they are in favor of protecting the reef they'd say yes, but when they see the price tag they would probably lose interest.
- vacri 10y agoIt's not so much about the price tag, but more that there are other issues nearer and dearer to their hearts. A strong majority of Australians want gay marriage laws passed, for example, but the two major parties can dodge the issue because other issues are more important to their voters.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Luminarys 10y agoAlthough I've never seen the Great Barrier Reef, I was recently in Belize and snorkeled around its Barrier Reef. It was painfully obvious that the reefs were extensively bleached(though still quite beautiful). It's quite shocking to think that 30 years ago the reefs looked completely different from now and in another 30 years may not even be around. I hope that in the future we won't be reduced to having to point to pictures in a book if people want to witness the beauty of nature but this seems increasingly inevitable. What a shame.
- nolok 10y agoSadly at the speed this is going they won't last 30 more years. We've already reached their limit point, and when they go the entire eco-system they host are going to die with them. And then the greet barrier reef will be a memory.
- Red_Tarsius 10y agoThis is what keeps me up at night. If we don't find an efficient way to extract CO2 and methane from the atmosphere, I fear that mankind might go extinct.
- erikpukinskis 10y agoMankind is absurdly resilient. We are like rats or cockroaches but a hundred times more adaptable. Billions of people could die. We might lose 99% of species. But human extinction is out of the question. We could live in bubbles of air under the ocean huddled around nuclear reactors if we needed to. Roaches couldn't do that (without our help).
- pier25 10y ago> Billions of people could die. We might lose 99% of species. You make it sound like this wasn't a huge deal.
- Red_Tarsius 10y agoBut our scientific knowledge could be lost, maybe forever. The survivors may also forget the concepts of free speech, human rights, the separation of faith and state. What are the chances that we rediscover all of this? Such thoughts require a minimum threshold of resources. But climate change might disrupt our sources of food production.
- erikpukinskis 10y agoA hundred million people with smartphones will be able to preserve that. Try to come up with a realistic scenario that kills the last 100m humans. I've never seen one. You'd become at least internet famous if you could do it.
- vacri 10y agoThe humans that survive such an event will not be the smartphone engineers, but the subsistence farmers.
- ohashi 10y agoI saw a bleaching event in Thailand last year, it really is depressing to see. This year, the same sites have seemingly recovered and I'm really happy about that. But seeing the pictures of completely bleached white corals in the article and knowing that's probably the future for a lot of these reefs breaks my heart. Coral reefs are magical places and we're destroying them for future generations, maybe even the current one.
- dingo_bat 10y ago> Coral reefs are magical places How so? How are they different from any other natural ecosystem?
- pluteoid 10y agoThey are one of the most biodiverse habitats, if not the most diverse, home to a vast array of often spectacular species. And unlike other highly biodiverse habitats, much of this spectacle is densely represented and constantly on show. In a tropical rainforest, you can ramble uncomfortably through dense undergrowth for hours, hearing many animals but glimpsing few, usually from a limited range of phyla, and seeing mostly plants. On a healthy reef, drift but a few minutes through the clear, warm seawater, and the sheer abundance and variety of algae, corals, anenomes, molluscs, echinoderms, sponges and many other invertebrate phyla, as well as algae and of course fish, will be immediately apparent.
- rodionos 10y ago> Coral bleaches when the water it’s in is too warm for too long. The coral polyps gets stressed and spit out the algae that live in inside them. Without the colourful algae, the coral flesh becomes transparent, revealing the stark white skeleton beneath.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- crawrey 10y agoI grew up on the coast of the Great Barrier Reef in North Queensland and I can say that the current state of the reef is almost unrecognisable to what it was 20-odd years ago. While a large part of this damage has been caused by rising sea temperatures, another large component is due to the run-off from agriculture, refineries and mining. The latter being a directly contributed by the local population. The region is currently in a economic recession and many of the mines and refineries have either slowed or ceased operation. Anecdotally, the sentiment of the population affected by (un)employment by these industries are either unaware or ignorant towards the damage that the industries are having on this sensitive ecosystem. Instead they are consumed by how they are going to make ends meet. In this environment, it is unthinkable to allow Adani expand their Carmichael mine to further exacerbate the situation. Add to this, that a former Adani board member is appointed to evaluate the environmental impacts of the expansion. Adani is the biggest direct threat to Australia, both environmentally and economically and they are in talks with the government to be provided with a $1 billion tax-payer funded railway line. Adani and the Carmichael mine expansion are rifled with corruption. The issue of the reef and climate-change in general is a fairly untouched issue in Australian politics. I'm not sure that we are going to get anywhere without foreign intervention. If you are interested, I do urge you to read some material on Adani and the Carmichael coal mine expansion and perhaps donate to a "StopAdani" cause. Wish us luck.
- jozzas 10y agoThe QLD government is doing some good work on water quality - particularly engaging with farmers, reducing pesticide and fertiliser runoffs, and reducing erosion. But it's all underfunded and therefore not coordinated or widespread enough. The federal government has ignored these issues for decades while we've been burning coal for power and digging it up and exporting it to the biggest polluters. It's disgusting, really.
- nojvek 10y agoI lived in Australia for 10 years and got a chance to visit great barrier reef multiple times. It's what started my love for water. Its not the same now. If by the time I have kids and they don't get to have the experience of lush underwater life, I will definitely believe we humans are cancer for the planet. Australia is a rich and educated country. If they can't fix the mess they created I don't have much hopes for the other parts of the world.
- jozzas 10y agoThere are some excellent scientists and programs attempting to improve water quality (particularly catchments that flow into the reef) and the crown of thorns starfish. Unfortunately these are badly underfunded, not coordinated at a national level as they should be, and do not address the biggest threat - climate change. The reef is doomed unless something is done about CO2 emissions. It's probably already too late. The loss of the GBR will see a collapse of tourism industries, and entire ecosystems will die off. There are going to be huge impacts in the next 15-20 years to come out of this. A lot of low lying countries in the pacific will get the triple whammy of increased cyclone activity, rising sea levels and a loss of reefs and the fish populations that they subsist on. There are huge humanitarian disasters ahead.
- good_vibes 10y agoWhat can we do? Serious question.
- flukus 10y agoImmediately halt all carbon emissions in the world, that might be enough to save it. Reality is the time to act was 20 years (or more) ago.
- worldsayshi 10y agoAs long as at least some coral survive it's not time to give up. If we can halt carbon emissions and turn our industrial complex towards proper sustainability the earth will probably heal. Perhaps it will take a thousand years for it to recover but as long as we reach sustainability that doesn't really matter.
- flukus 10y agoIt could probably heal, it might even do so if we burned every fossil fuel on earth, but the incredibly amount of biodiversity in the reefs would be gone and that will never come back.
- worldsayshi 10y agoNever is a long time. I see what you mean but there isn't much point in being defeatist?
- idanoeman 9y agoI think you mean "won't come back in 100s (1000s? 10000s?)" of years. We don't have the technology to actually eliminate life on earth.
- pier25 10y agoEven if we magically stopped all emissions today it would not be enough. The time to act was probably 50 years ago. 1) Climatic feedback systems such as arctic ice melting, or permafrost methane have already been triggered. This means their effect will continue for centuries if not millenia. 2) Climate lag. There are a few decades between emissions and consequences in the climate. 40 years on averge from what I've read. This means we are now only seeing the effects from the 70s emissions, and we have emitted more CO2 in the past decades than in the previous 150 years before that. 3) Cooling from sulfate aerosols produced by industrial activity. It's unclear how much these are cooling the atmosphere but even a small number such 0.2ºC would be considerable. Our only chance are very strong negative emissions.
- huckyaus 10y agoMy cousin Sam[0] runs the environmental side of things at GetUp and is putting a lot of time and effort into raising awareness about the reef. They're currently fundraising[1] for a targeted campaign in 12 Liberal electorates with the aim of encouraging MPs to break their silence and listen to their constituents on the issues surrounding Adani and the GBR. Full disclosure: GetUp is a politically partisan organisation with strong left leanings. But I think the work they're doing around these issues is rooted more in common sense than politics. Is anyone else involved in any grassroots-level efforts to save the reef? I'd be interested to hear about them. [0] https://twitter.com/samregester https://twitter.com/samregester [1] https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/great-barrier-reef--3/the-white-death-of-the-reef/turnbull-schmoozes-while-the-reef-is-dying https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/great-barrier-reef--3/the...
- altstar 10y agoWhy only Liberal electorates? Queensland government is Labor. Why not target them?
- huckyaus 10y agoBecause the Federal government, not the QLD government, are weighing up a $1bn concessional loan for Adani's Carmichael coal mine. GetUp campaigners clearly feel they can make an impact at the Federal level; it worked during the last election. That being said, they are equally critical of the QLD government and the corporate entities that are supporting Adani. Have a read of Sam's timeline. https://twitter.com/samregester/status/849177022085578752 https://twitter.com/samregester/status/849177022085578752
- psynapse 10y agoThis really saddens me. I spent a week or so on Lady Elliot Island more than a decade ago, snorkelling every day. Because it is a protected area, the fauna are unafraid of people. I would dive down into these cavernous bowls of coral and be surrounded by schools of fish, rays, turtles. It was amazing. I live in Europe now, but I always hoped to take my children there to see it one day. Seems there won't be much to see.
- infradig 10y agoThe real culprit for coral bleaching? A swift fall in mean sea level during a major El Nino event. See: http://www.biogeosciences.net/14/817/2017/ http://www.biogeosciences.net/14/817/2017/
- kerbalspacepro 10y agoThe Guardian article is about a 2017 event, not the 2016 event that the BG article references.
- Slobbinson 10y agoPauline Hanson & Malcolm Roberts will pose in front of the coral display at the Townsville Aquarium and tell us it's all a beat-up.
- Gravityloss 10y agohttps://climateslamdown.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/easterbunnyislandcolour1.jpg https://climateslamdown.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/easterbu...
- spodek 10y agoMany posts here about how sad and disgusted people are. Not much about people taking personal responsibility. What do people think the carrying capacity of the planet means? Sustaining more humans means sacrificing other life that competes for our resources. It means pollution rising until it doesn't quite kill us but is well above the levels of a pristine, clean environment. Nobody wants to live near the carrying capacity because approaching it means sacrificing anything that doesn't keep us alive. Every round trip flight across the country you take contributes almost one year's allotment from the Paris agreement for one person -- https://co2.myclimate.org/en/portfolios?calculation_id=719701 https://co2.myclimate.org/en/portfolios?calculation_id=71970.... Flying first class and you're well over it. Eating meat contributes a lot too. Having more kids in western cultures contributes significantly. Who among us, reading this, hasn't gone over their annual limit in just a few hours of flying, not to mention their regular life otherwise? How many have blown past their Paris limits already this year? Some would say the damage was done by past generations. Okay, well what beautiful part of nature will our behavior destroy years from now? People keep posting to HN that since we can't change that a lot will happen, it doesn't matter any more, we should just enjoy ourselves, but there are different degrees of destruction. Alternatively, we can fly less, drive less, eat much less meat, and have fewer kids. We don't need to wait for legislation. In fact, it's the fastest way to get legislation, since politicians follow voters. In my experience, acting on all those things improved my life tremendously (including not flying for a year+ http://www.inc.com/joshua-spodek/365-days-without-flying.html http://www.inc.com/joshua-spodek/365-days-without-flying.htm...), more than almost anything else. I'm more fit, enjoy my neighborhood and neighbors, and spend less money and there's nothing special about me.
- scandox 10y agoHow will politicians follow voters if voters' own actions cause shrinking economies and fewer jobs? That's not rhetorical. I don't know how it is possible within the current system to back down en-masse in the way you suggest. In addition if one culture does shrink and others simply grow more aggressively then the end result will be same. What you're talking about is a global consensus to shrink the world population and economy. That isn't something I can personally take hold of. Despite the fact that I do live rather minimally - I don't kid myself that it's changing anything. I just like it that way. I am often quite sceptical of the "science will save us" approach, but actually it seems more credible than the "change one person at a time" approach.
- josscrowcroft 10y agoIs improving water quality the decided-upon method for preventing (or even reversing) bleaching of coral reefs? It seems like that ship has sailed, and now more technological advances are required. Speaking from zero expertise or experience in marine biology, is it not possible to manufacture massive quantities of synthetic coral that somehow corrects for the changing water quality to enable coral life to flourish?
- tim333 10y agoThe problem seems to be the water temperature. It's not easy to fix.
- josscrowcroft 10y agoAgain speaking from zero expertise, would it be possible to genetically engineer coral lifeforms to adapt to higher temperatures?
- scott_karana 10y agoMaybe, but it's part of an ecoSYSTEM, so do other reef dwellers all need to be modified? How does that affect migration and comptetion? Etc
- harry8 10y agoI've been hearing the reef is at death's door for 30 years. When I go, it looks amazing. Still. Maybe this scare campaign is different to all the other ones. Maybe this time as they cry wolf there really is a wolf. Maybe... If so it's a perfect example of the environmental movement destroying their own credibility so that not many in Australia, among those who love the reef, care what they're saying this week. People need to call bullshit on bullshit whether that bullshit is in the service of great justice or not. It's still bullshit and it still trashes credibility. Outrage fatigue is far worse when you know you've been had.
- kakarot 9y agoWow nice anecdotal evidence. You sure just changed my mind! I knew those environmental scientists were full of shit with their rigid studies and methodological collection of samples. There's no way they could have studied the coral reef as thoroughly as you have. Any other rapidly accelerating environmental destruction I should pretend doesn't exist while I'm at it?
- harry8 9y agoI think you missed the point there. This may well be true, and I noted that. I sure believed when I was a teenager that the reef would be gone by 2000, which was what I was reading in the guardian weekely on airmail paper back when that was the thing. Why don't people care that something as amazing, beautiful, and awesome as the reef is under serious threat? Because we're all aresholes who love Trump/Tony/Maggie, obviously or just sheeple. There is no problem at all with alarmist catastrophism in the conservation movement and obviously no problem with alienating anyone who isn't wildly socialist. Pretend it's not an issue by all means but it won't be terribly helpful to achieve, you know, actual conservation.
- kakarot 9y agoParents will often tell their kids they need to leave at a certain time because they expect their kids will not accurately gauge their limited time and will not meet the ultimatum. I'm not saying this is the sole reason we get non-conservative estimates of environmental impact over a period of time, but it definitely applies. Most of us, due to various factors both in and out of our control, are too self-centered to understand that just because something will not disappear in our lifetime doesn't mean it isn't their immediate responsibility. It's best to assume the earth will shake and sky will split tomorrow and act accordingly. Sure, this alarmist approach can lead to burnout with a large, ignorant portion of the population but we can supplement this with proper education instead of trying to find a single golden bullet. On top of that, we can only be so accurate when speaking about time-spans of climate-related events we have never had a chance to study as thoroughly as today. But the overwhelming majority of scientists who have found themselves studying the climate feel a great sense of urgency about making changes while we can. They know more than anyone how out of our control this will soon be and how it affects our interconnected ecosystems. So there is a tendency to lean on conclusions that make waves and turn heads. And it's not just reefs. For example, the alarmist prophecies of our fuel supplies drying up within a matter of decades has probably contributed very positively to extreme efforts by international parties to greenify our energy production and transportation systems. I doubt people would be trying as hard to make the switch right now if we still had half a millennium of reserves left. It's kind of like how many of us tend to procrastinate on our own work and increasingly put in more effort as the deadline approaches.
- zipwitch 10y agoThis is merely the inevitable outcome of what we've known has been coming for a while, even if many haven't wanted to acknowledge that the corals were effectively already dead. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/opinion/a-world-without-coral-reefs.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/opinion/a-world-without-co...
- ozy 10y agoSo ... when do we shoot some rockets high up and spray something reflecting sunlight, changing earths albedo? Plan B?