12 ms·

Loss of Coral Reefs Could Cost $1T

315 points by uptown 10y ago

arcanus 10y ago
I always dislike estimates of this sort, because they give the impression of a scaling argument O(trillion $) when they are never validated and they are seldom more than 'this could cause a huge impact'! I'm speaking as someone who is horrified at the loss of coral reefs, both because of the ecological implications as well as the loss of a truly stunning natural beauty (I'm PADI certified and love Scuba).
- devoply 10y ago
  Well the sort of rhetoric comes from the fact that economic considerations in our world are dealt with very quickly compared to environmental considerations.
- Shivetya 10y ago
  Well I guess my only real problem is the group assessing the value is not government backed and as such may not have strict enough guidance when determining impact. However the need for assessment if there is a reasonable means to correct the issue or prevent future occurrence. I doubt we can correct it and do we know if this has ever occurred without possibility of man's activities? I would be curious as to the evolution of coral reefs, what is their historic variability?
- ajross 10y ago
  You must really hate the evening weather report and financial news media then. Hoo boy, and you thought those "scientists" were hand-wavy. Wait until you see what they do with stock picks! (Edit: I can see by the downvotes that no one appreciates the sarcasm. The serious way to express this point is that by demanding rigor and precision of this kind of analysis, you are applying a standard that you very much DO NOT apply to the other important issues in your life. Squishy, hard-to-quantify risk management is pervasive in retirement planning, insurance purchases, education decisions, career choice, marriage... So why are you insisting that climate and ecological decisions be held to a higher standard?)
- novia 10y ago
  Radiolab had a pretty good podcast explaining where these economic estimates come from and why they are important to have around. It's part 3 at the following link: http://www.radiolab.org/story/worth/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/worth/ Basically, if you do not make a monetary estimate of the worth of some feature of nature, it's assumed worth is $0 when governments are making decisions about policy and land use.
kenpomeroy 10y ago
> “It would have been virtually impossible for this to have occurred without climate change.” > “This isn’t just an environmental issue. The Great Barrier Reef is one of Australia’s greatest economic assets. It’s responsible for bringing in more than $7 billion each year to our economy, while also supporting the livelihoods of around 70,000 people.” The irony is that in order for these tourists to visit, they have to fly overseas in planes creating significant carbon emissions.
- losteric 10y ago
  On the other hand, flying accounts for less than 5% of global CO2 emissions. Enviro-tourism arguably helps reduce the other 95%.
  - shoo 10y ago
    that'd be great if it were true, but i'm skeptical. Even ignoring the CO2 produced by flying, what evidence is there that enviro-tourism itself reduces CO2 emissions?
    - losteric 10y ago
      Well, the stats are true and available online. I admittedly lack evidence on the enviro-tourism aspect, but it seems logical that tourists from heavily industrialized 3rd world countries return with some desire to improve their home environment.
- idlewords 10y ago
  These tourists are also exhaling carbon dioxide, which has about as much effect on global warming (negligible) as long-haul flights to Australia. "The IPCC has estimated that aviation is responsible for around 3.5% of anthropogenic climate change." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviation#Total_climate_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviati...]
- ageofwant 10y ago
  Tourism is a drop in the ocean... "Coral reefs are some of the most diverse and valuable ecosystems on Earth. Coral reefs support more species per unit area than any other marine environment, including about 4,000 species of fish, 800 species of hard corals and hundreds of other species. Scientists estimate that there may be another 1 to 8 million undiscovered species of organisms living in and around reefs (Reaka-Kudla, 1997). This biodiversity is considered key to finding new medicines for the 21st century. Many drugs are now being developed from coral reef animals and plants as possible cures for cancer, arthritis, human bacterial infections, viruses, and other diseases. Storehouses of immense biological wealth, reefs also provide economic and environmental services to millions of people. Coral reefs may provide goods and services worth $375 billion each year. This is an amazing figure for an environment that covers less than 1 percent of the Earth’s surface (Costanza et al., 1997)." http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/corals/coral07_importance.html http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/corals/coral07_i...
iplaw 10y ago
It's OK, we've already losts $1.5T on the F-35. What's another?
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Money is replaceable, precious and unique ecosystems are not. The fact that they place a price on it doesn't matter, by many definitions it's priceless.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- ageofwant 10y ago
  When a tin of sardines cost $120 people will notice. When chicken is worth $45/pound (because they are fed fish meal) people may notice. And the world will be a changed place. We'll have neural laces, and soylent 19/20 meals.
jorgemf 10y ago
Ok, so now we care about the environment and the planet if we can set a price. If we estimate an animal race is worth a $10k we can extinct it. I dislike very much to put a price on things just to be aware we need to protect them. Coral reefs have more value, it is not just about money.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  The overwhelming majority of people in the world, even those living in coastal areas, have never seen a coral reef in real life. Some may have seen it on TV or in print media, but most people are aware of them only by name. That's why the economic argument is a good way to communicate the importance of these resources. Someone who has never left Kentucky in their entire life may not care about The Grand Barrier Reef in Australia, but they may care about the global economic impact of losing it.
  - jorgemf 10y ago
    Isn't it the problem? They may care because of the $$$. We should care about our planet because is where we live! Harming any part of the ecosystem has more impact that only the money, and there are some problems that we cannot predict in advance.
    - losteric 10y ago
      I've been saying it for years, but: The only political issue that matters is education. Everything else is tactical. A nation's education system should be responsible for raising the next generation of citizens, propagating our national identity and cultural values to the next generation while imbuing them with the ability to think critically to ward off corrupting ideas. Successful nations, especially empires like the US, needs a common world view to glue citizens together... social cohesion, progress, and economic success go hand in hand. In contrast, our dismal K-12 system is built to churn out 20th century factory employees rather than educated 21st century citizens. We treat school like a glorified day care rather than a vital cultural institution, leading to a tremendously wasteful and inefficient K-college system. It's ludicrous that most Americans would fail our citizenship test... which requires getting 6 out of 10 multiple-choice questions right. Ludicrous.
chaostheory 10y ago
Have the world's coast guards and navies already been deployed to protect natural resources within a country's borders? If not yet, I would be surprised if it didn't happen soon.
- losteric 10y ago
  If you include food, yes. Multiple nations have shot at unauthorized Chinese fishing vessels trawling within their borders, however China hasn't defended those ships beyond political posturing. As far as fossil fuels go, I'm not aware of states defending their internationally recognized claims against other states... but there is growing tension behind unrecognized claims. The South China Sea issue is largely driven by China using their navy to project borders beyond internationally recognized limits. Their official justification is reclaiming historical territory, which suspiciously became a priority when oil was discovered in the area. Russia may be in a similar position. They've been building up their Arctic military force, presumably with the intent of claiming Arctic oil fields as the Northwestern Passages opens up due to climate change. However, again, they haven't claimed anything officially.
d--b 10y ago
Forget about the estimate, the loss of coral reefs is a disaster, period.
- necessity 10y ago
  Why? The poor who benefit from cheap energy don't give a fuck about tourists loosing their fancy attraction.
xname2 10y ago
This number does not make sense at all. Yes, certain sites lost visitors because of loss of coral reefs, but how come this financial effect is global? Do visitors go to other places? Even if they stay home, don't they spend money on other things? Even if they don't spend those money, can the savings help them in the future? It is just ridiculous to claim losing certain visitors as global financial cost.
- ageofwant 10y ago
  Tourism amounts to about 5% of the economic importance of coral reefs. 35% of all fish species spend a part of their life cycle on reefs. Pelagic fish predate on reef and demersals, the system is fundamentally interdependent. reefs protect coastal infrastructure, and so on. Thinking that the loss of coral reefs only affects a few rich playboys is... naive.
Alex3917 10y ago
I was snorkeling in Indonesia a couple years ago, and they didn't sell reef-safe sunscreen anywhere in the country, even in the national parks. It's insane to me that these sorts of locations that derive so much of their GDP from tourism don't even make it possible to protect the resources driving their economy, let alone encouraging or mandating that people do so. Like you would think that if you were a hotel near Kommodo National Park, and the only reason anyone ever stays at your hotel is to go snorkeling and see the Kommodo dragons, then you would stock reef-safe products in your gift shop. But sadly that's not the case.
- dkarapetyan 10y ago
  Are you from this planet? People consistently burn down all the things that sustains them in pursuit of short term gains. Like that's not even a philosophical point about greed and shortsightedness. It's an empirical fact you can bet on.
  - RubenSandwich 10y ago
    Sadly this is true, but it still seems illogical every time it happens. Edit: Illogical because while you may be making money now, your actions will cause you to loose your assets in the long term.
    - mizzao 10y ago
      Humans are just a lot better conditioned to respond to short-term stimuli than long-term goals. Maybe it's a product of our evolutionary history (avoiding predators, making sure we are fed) but it sure doesn't work well at global, collective scales.
      - RubenSandwich 10y ago
        Agreed. This is why I believe that we should have regulations and rules to make certain short-term gains painful. That self-regulation is at best wishful thinking. Let's say that you have 'sustainability', fill in that word however you want, in mind when building your business. But a company who's primary concern is growth will most likely surge ahead of you, possibly squeezing them out of the market. That company can't just retrofit those 'sustainability' practices as by this time they are expected to continue their revenue and company culture is extremely difficult to change.
caub 10y ago
it would be great if people not just upvote it, but change their lifestyle, stop to overconsume, over-eat, over-everything, limit their car usage or at least not drive stupidly, stop having useless pets, stop smoking, etc.. I don't want to give lessons, but I have probably 5% of the average impact people do to environment in my country
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dsfyu404ed 10y ago
As someone who grew up in an area where tourism was the primary "industry" I don't think it's appropriate to count loss of tourism generated commerce as a "loss" here. It might be a local loss but it's a net win for society.
nojvek 10y ago
I think the Fermi Paradox's great filter will probably filter us out. I don't regard humans as a very smart species. It's like an ape hacked on with a large computer
- lgas 10y ago
  What is a species you would consider smart?
  - dota_fanatic 10y ago
    How about one that can engage in plans as a collective that consider long-term consequences over short-term gains? This is something we use when considering how well along a child is in development. It appears humanity as a collective isn't much smarter than a child.
- Diederich 10y ago
  Fermi's Paradox looms large, and the Filter seems to as well. Humans are exceptionally intelligent, that is obvious. At the same time, we still hold most of the evolutionary baggage that has, up to a few thousand years ago, allowed us in no small part to succeed. For example: given two events, A and B, where A is a bad event and B is a good event, of equal magnitudes, we will almost always far more clearly remember event A, the bad thing, than B. Bad things making a deeper and longer lasting psychological impression is an excellent and effective evolutionary characteristic, until relatively recently. Now, I think it's making us crazy. That's just one example. A more direct example would be how much more important short-term thinking is to us than long-term thinking. Again, historically, a huge evolutionary advantage. Now, well, here we are.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
okreallywtf 10y ago
This is a perfect example of how the economics of climate change and energy are totally messed up. These kinds of problems are not factored into the economics of energy so coal and oil will remain economically viable without getting any kind of penalty. Governments will attempt to tackle these issues (too late most likely) and it will be largely public funds that go towards restoration but oil and gas and coal companies will pocket all the profits and contribute little to the repercussions. If we factored in the total costs of our energy sources renewable would be even more attractive. Given the fact that the energy companies have known about climate change for decades [1], at what point is it expected that they use some of the incredible profits made at the planets expense to mitigate those costs? It is adding insult to injury that these companies are able to avoid a lot of taxes [2] that would at least contribute to public funds being used to combat climate change. That isn't even counting the millions (billions?) that have been spent on misinformation. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-... [2] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/03/07/27-giant-profitable-companies-paid-no-taxes/81399094/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/03/07/27-g...
- shoo 10y ago
  i agree. but you're also letting the other side of the deal - consumers of energy produced by polluting energy sources - off the hook. the consumers benefit from this state of affairs too.
  - ivraatiems 10y ago
    What are consumers supposed to do? In many places there is no choice; you get the power the single utility company around provides you. It comes from wherever it comes from. Generating your own is not economically feasible for most.
    - shoo 10y ago
      if consumers live in a democratic country they need to demand policy change to regulate this. some people frame climate change as an "emergency". politically, it is only an emergency if enough people think it is an emergency and are prepared to vote along these lines. i'd agree it is an emergency. but i don't think a majority of people do - so politically, it isn't an emergency.
louithethrid 10y ago
To patch the allemende-bug, you would have to introduce incentives via politics, but incentives are either gambled around or with, or corroded away by cooperate-kapital not beeing busy. So to fix it, you need a law that is gambling waterteight - in all participating countrys- and you need to bind law corroding kapital. Now its basically impossible to change this democratically - any initiative would be bend, distorted and defused long before it would reach the capital. The only feasible option - is to alter consumer behaviour. For this, the real economic footprint needs to be visible on all products, with the easy scan of a app. All of it. Meaning, you need to pay people all along the supply chain to spy on the origins and processes that produce something. You could then really see what in your life is destroying that reef - and what alternatives there are. And then you could vote with your feet. And to add incentive for those who do not care (we are all dead in the long term), some publicly visible environmental kharma point system, could be the final incentive. Maybe- something aking to jewelery- you only get, if you sacrifice part of your lifestyle for the planet.
dakota_101 10y ago
Seems weird to be talking about this in terms of Trillions of dollars of impact to the economy. I get it that it can be helpful to show people how bad it could be but I'm not sure it does a great job at that even. It would be like saying: Lack of breathable air could cost $76 Trillion Globally
- macawfish 10y ago
  Some people only care about money.
  - monk_e_boy 10y ago
    How do you fix that? We need some sort of karma for good deeds. I can up vote comments on hn without spending "votes", I don't run out of them. Using them as a sort of currency would be interesting. Would this solve problems that aren't profit making? Like fixing the climate.
    - zo1 10y ago
      And where would these magical "votes" come from? Would we be born with a finite amount of them, and get to use them periodically? Say, like an election and voting? In addition, let's say I get lots of these "votes". What good are they to me? What value to they possess/represent? Do we treat them as magical brownie points that are monetarily value-less, in which case, only those that care for the prestige of having many of them would chase them. The rest would ignore it. Do we punish individuals for having too little? How about punishing those individuals that misuse them? Sell them? Anywho, playing a bit of devil's advocate there. But sounds like what you're suggesting is money. It's available right now, and yet people don't go around donating ridiculous-enough amounts of it to make an appreciable difference in "karma" regarding the environment. That's why we're having this discussion, even.
      - monk_e_boy 10y ago
        I am poor. I would like to fix the environment. How do I affect change? How do I go from helpless to helpful? I have no money, I have little spare time, limited range of travel. We see these unfixable problems with climate and no real way of tackling them. I spent an hour picking up plastic from the beach, could I turn that time and effort into something? Like money or karma or something else. I can't do it for free as I need money for food. No one wants to pay me to do it. How do we solve this?
sporkenfang 10y ago
This is a problem tech could solve. I don't see what stops us from monetizing saving the reefs via charging for eco-friendly tourism in pristine ocean.
SamPhillips 10y ago
If you're concerned by this, a group of us tech folks will be marching with the Climate March on April 29th. Join us! https://techsector.peoplesclimate.org/ https://techsector.peoplesclimate.org/
sparkzilla 10y ago
This is a perfect example of unwarranted alarmism. It links coral bleaching to global warming without any proof, while making ridiculous economic claims. Locals [1] and local scientists [2] disagree with the claim that the reef is irreparably damaged. Here's the quote: We’ve also seen reports that 35 per cent, or even 50 per cent, of the entire reef is now gone. However, based on our combined results so far, the overall mortality rate is 22 per cent — and about 85 per cent of that die-off has occurred in the far north between the tip of Cape York and just north of Lizard Island, 250km north of Cairns. Seventy-five per cent of the reef will come out in a few months time as recovered. I also urge anyone who is sick of this kind of science scaremongering to follow junkscience.com [3] [1] http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/reef-tourism-operators-find-less-than-five-per-cent-of-coral-dead-under-extreme-bleaching/news-story/ http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/reef-tourism-o... [2] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/great-barrier-reef-scientists-exaggerated-coral-bleaching/news-story/99810c83f5a420727b12ab255256774b http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/great-barrier-re... [3] http://junkscience.com http://junkscience.com
Proven 10y ago
Haha, it "could" cost $100T too
titojankowski 10y ago
Anyone else see massive opportunities here for entrepreneurs? I like to say "climate change will create the first trillionaire". I can't help but imagine the powerful technologies and systems that will be developed out of this. Eco-friendly tourism, environmental sensors, synthetic biology reef protectants.
- SerpentJoe 10y ago
  If we assume that governments and businesses start giving a shit then many forms of magic are possible.
  - titojankowski 10y ago
    A "Hacker's Guide to Climate Change" would be cool...equip hackers to make the magic :)
tn135 10y ago
Ah! the fear mongering. There is science and then there is stamp collecting. This report is more like later. These reports must be taken with grain of salt. Not only the study is dubious but it essentially talks of all coral reefs across the world doing extinct. There is good chance that coral reefs will reduce in their size over next few decades but they are unlikely to totally disappear. Neither will the jobs and other opportunities disappear with it. A rare coral reef is a bigger tourism destination. Also $1T is a figure I will totally ignore. If we have to protect coral reefs it is because it is an important part of ecosystem that I would like to conserve for my kids and grand kids (and I would like to pay for the conservation efforts too). I think the probability that US will go into another recession over either war or some other government scheme gone wrong is much higher over next 30 years. We will likely lose lot more that $1T that time.
tkyjonathan 10y ago
If you do not want to wait for your government to take action about climate change, you do have an individual option; http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/08/opinions/go-vegan-save-the-planet-wang/ http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/08/opinions/go-vegan-save-the... And heres how: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=vegan+what+I+eat+in+a+day https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=vegan+what+I+ea...
Rylinks 10y ago
>The loss of Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef alone costing that region 1 million visitors a year, imperilling 10,000 jobs and draining $1 billion from the economy This is terrible for Queensland, but it doesn't support the $1T global cost. Most of these tourism dollars will go to other attractions that are slightly worse on the margin--they won't just disappear.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 10y ago
At this point anybody not calling for more nuclear power plants is just ignoring reality.

315 points by uptown 10y ago

I always dislike estimates of this sort, because they give the impression of a scaling argument O(trillion $) when they are never validated and they are seldom more than 'this could cause a huge impact'! I'm speaking as someone who is horrified at the loss of coral reefs, both because of the ecological implications as well as the loss of a truly stunning natural beauty (I'm PADI certified and love Scuba).

devoply 10y ago
Well the sort of rhetoric comes from the fact that economic considerations in our world are dealt with very quickly compared to environmental considerations.
Shivetya 10y ago
Well I guess my only real problem is the group assessing the value is not government backed and as such may not have strict enough guidance when determining impact. However the need for assessment if there is a reasonable means to correct the issue or prevent future occurrence. I doubt we can correct it and do we know if this has ever occurred without possibility of man's activities? I would be curious as to the evolution of coral reefs, what is their historic variability?
ajross 10y ago
You must really hate the evening weather report and financial news media then. Hoo boy, and you thought those "scientists" were hand-wavy. Wait until you see what they do with stock picks! (Edit: I can see by the downvotes that no one appreciates the sarcasm. The serious way to express this point is that by demanding rigor and precision of this kind of analysis, you are applying a standard that you very much DO NOT apply to the other important issues in your life. Squishy, hard-to-quantify risk management is pervasive in retirement planning, insurance purchases, education decisions, career choice, marriage... So why are you insisting that climate and ecological decisions be held to a higher standard?)
novia 10y ago
Radiolab had a pretty good podcast explaining where these economic estimates come from and why they are important to have around. It's part 3 at the following link: http://www.radiolab.org/story/worth/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/worth/ Basically, if you do not make a monetary estimate of the worth of some feature of nature, it's assumed worth is $0 when governments are making decisions about policy and land use.

kenpomeroy 10y ago

> “It would have been virtually impossible for this to have occurred without climate change.” > “This isn’t just an environmental issue. The Great Barrier Reef is one of Australia’s greatest economic assets. It’s responsible for bringing in more than $7 billion each year to our economy, while also supporting the livelihoods of around 70,000 people.” The irony is that in order for these tourists to visit, they have to fly overseas in planes creating significant carbon emissions.

losteric 10y ago
On the other hand, flying accounts for less than 5% of global CO2 emissions. Enviro-tourism arguably helps reduce the other 95%.
- shoo 10y ago
  that'd be great if it were true, but i'm skeptical. Even ignoring the CO2 produced by flying, what evidence is there that enviro-tourism itself reduces CO2 emissions?
  - losteric 10y ago
    Well, the stats are true and available online. I admittedly lack evidence on the enviro-tourism aspect, but it seems logical that tourists from heavily industrialized 3rd world countries return with some desire to improve their home environment.
idlewords 10y ago
These tourists are also exhaling carbon dioxide, which has about as much effect on global warming (negligible) as long-haul flights to Australia. "The IPCC has estimated that aviation is responsible for around 3.5% of anthropogenic climate change." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviation#Total_climate_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviati...]
ageofwant 10y ago
Tourism is a drop in the ocean... "Coral reefs are some of the most diverse and valuable ecosystems on Earth. Coral reefs support more species per unit area than any other marine environment, including about 4,000 species of fish, 800 species of hard corals and hundreds of other species. Scientists estimate that there may be another 1 to 8 million undiscovered species of organisms living in and around reefs (Reaka-Kudla, 1997). This biodiversity is considered key to finding new medicines for the 21st century. Many drugs are now being developed from coral reef animals and plants as possible cures for cancer, arthritis, human bacterial infections, viruses, and other diseases. Storehouses of immense biological wealth, reefs also provide economic and environmental services to millions of people. Coral reefs may provide goods and services worth $375 billion each year. This is an amazing figure for an environment that covers less than 1 percent of the Earth’s surface (Costanza et al., 1997)." http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/corals/coral07_importance.html http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/corals/coral07_i...

iplaw 10y ago

It's OK, we've already losts $1.5T on the F-35. What's another?

jacquesm 10y ago
Money is replaceable, precious and unique ecosystems are not. The fact that they place a price on it doesn't matter, by many definitions it's priceless.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
ageofwant 10y ago
When a tin of sardines cost $120 people will notice. When chicken is worth $45/pound (because they are fed fish meal) people may notice. And the world will be a changed place. We'll have neural laces, and soylent 19/20 meals.

jorgemf 10y ago

Ok, so now we care about the environment and the planet if we can set a price. If we estimate an animal race is worth a $10k we can extinct it. I dislike very much to put a price on things just to be aware we need to protect them. Coral reefs have more value, it is not just about money.

enraged_camel 10y ago
The overwhelming majority of people in the world, even those living in coastal areas, have never seen a coral reef in real life. Some may have seen it on TV or in print media, but most people are aware of them only by name. That's why the economic argument is a good way to communicate the importance of these resources. Someone who has never left Kentucky in their entire life may not care about The Grand Barrier Reef in Australia, but they may care about the global economic impact of losing it.
- jorgemf 10y ago
  Isn't it the problem? They may care because of the $$$. We should care about our planet because is where we live! Harming any part of the ecosystem has more impact that only the money, and there are some problems that we cannot predict in advance.
  - losteric 10y ago
    I've been saying it for years, but: The only political issue that matters is education. Everything else is tactical. A nation's education system should be responsible for raising the next generation of citizens, propagating our national identity and cultural values to the next generation while imbuing them with the ability to think critically to ward off corrupting ideas. Successful nations, especially empires like the US, needs a common world view to glue citizens together... social cohesion, progress, and economic success go hand in hand. In contrast, our dismal K-12 system is built to churn out 20th century factory employees rather than educated 21st century citizens. We treat school like a glorified day care rather than a vital cultural institution, leading to a tremendously wasteful and inefficient K-college system. It's ludicrous that most Americans would fail our citizenship test... which requires getting 6 out of 10 multiple-choice questions right. Ludicrous.

chaostheory 10y ago

Have the world's coast guards and navies already been deployed to protect natural resources within a country's borders? If not yet, I would be surprised if it didn't happen soon.

losteric 10y ago
If you include food, yes. Multiple nations have shot at unauthorized Chinese fishing vessels trawling within their borders, however China hasn't defended those ships beyond political posturing. As far as fossil fuels go, I'm not aware of states defending their internationally recognized claims against other states... but there is growing tension behind unrecognized claims. The South China Sea issue is largely driven by China using their navy to project borders beyond internationally recognized limits. Their official justification is reclaiming historical territory, which suspiciously became a priority when oil was discovered in the area. Russia may be in a similar position. They've been building up their Arctic military force, presumably with the intent of claiming Arctic oil fields as the Northwestern Passages opens up due to climate change. However, again, they haven't claimed anything officially.

d--b 10y ago

Forget about the estimate, the loss of coral reefs is a disaster, period.

necessity 10y ago
Why? The poor who benefit from cheap energy don't give a fuck about tourists loosing their fancy attraction.

xname2 10y ago

This number does not make sense at all. Yes, certain sites lost visitors because of loss of coral reefs, but how come this financial effect is global? Do visitors go to other places? Even if they stay home, don't they spend money on other things? Even if they don't spend those money, can the savings help them in the future? It is just ridiculous to claim losing certain visitors as global financial cost.

ageofwant 10y ago
Tourism amounts to about 5% of the economic importance of coral reefs. 35% of all fish species spend a part of their life cycle on reefs. Pelagic fish predate on reef and demersals, the system is fundamentally interdependent. reefs protect coastal infrastructure, and so on. Thinking that the loss of coral reefs only affects a few rich playboys is... naive.

Alex3917 10y ago

I was snorkeling in Indonesia a couple years ago, and they didn't sell reef-safe sunscreen anywhere in the country, even in the national parks. It's insane to me that these sorts of locations that derive so much of their GDP from tourism don't even make it possible to protect the resources driving their economy, let alone encouraging or mandating that people do so. Like you would think that if you were a hotel near Kommodo National Park, and the only reason anyone ever stays at your hotel is to go snorkeling and see the Kommodo dragons, then you would stock reef-safe products in your gift shop. But sadly that's not the case.

dkarapetyan 10y ago
Are you from this planet? People consistently burn down all the things that sustains them in pursuit of short term gains. Like that's not even a philosophical point about greed and shortsightedness. It's an empirical fact you can bet on.
- RubenSandwich 10y ago
  Sadly this is true, but it still seems illogical every time it happens. Edit: Illogical because while you may be making money now, your actions will cause you to loose your assets in the long term.
  - mizzao 10y ago
    Humans are just a lot better conditioned to respond to short-term stimuli than long-term goals. Maybe it's a product of our evolutionary history (avoiding predators, making sure we are fed) but it sure doesn't work well at global, collective scales.
    - RubenSandwich 10y ago
      Agreed. This is why I believe that we should have regulations and rules to make certain short-term gains painful. That self-regulation is at best wishful thinking. Let's say that you have 'sustainability', fill in that word however you want, in mind when building your business. But a company who's primary concern is growth will most likely surge ahead of you, possibly squeezing them out of the market. That company can't just retrofit those 'sustainability' practices as by this time they are expected to continue their revenue and company culture is extremely difficult to change.

caub 10y ago

it would be great if people not just upvote it, but change their lifestyle, stop to overconsume, over-eat, over-everything, limit their car usage or at least not drive stupidly, stop having useless pets, stop smoking, etc.. I don't want to give lessons, but I have probably 5% of the average impact people do to environment in my country

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

dsfyu404ed 10y ago

As someone who grew up in an area where tourism was the primary "industry" I don't think it's appropriate to count loss of tourism generated commerce as a "loss" here. It might be a local loss but it's a net win for society.

nojvek 10y ago

I think the Fermi Paradox's great filter will probably filter us out. I don't regard humans as a very smart species. It's like an ape hacked on with a large computer

lgas 10y ago
What is a species you would consider smart?
- dota_fanatic 10y ago
  How about one that can engage in plans as a collective that consider long-term consequences over short-term gains? This is something we use when considering how well along a child is in development. It appears humanity as a collective isn't much smarter than a child.
Diederich 10y ago
Fermi's Paradox looms large, and the Filter seems to as well. Humans are exceptionally intelligent, that is obvious. At the same time, we still hold most of the evolutionary baggage that has, up to a few thousand years ago, allowed us in no small part to succeed. For example: given two events, A and B, where A is a bad event and B is a good event, of equal magnitudes, we will almost always far more clearly remember event A, the bad thing, than B. Bad things making a deeper and longer lasting psychological impression is an excellent and effective evolutionary characteristic, until relatively recently. Now, I think it's making us crazy. That's just one example. A more direct example would be how much more important short-term thinking is to us than long-term thinking. Again, historically, a huge evolutionary advantage. Now, well, here we are.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

okreallywtf 10y ago

This is a perfect example of how the economics of climate change and energy are totally messed up. These kinds of problems are not factored into the economics of energy so coal and oil will remain economically viable without getting any kind of penalty. Governments will attempt to tackle these issues (too late most likely) and it will be largely public funds that go towards restoration but oil and gas and coal companies will pocket all the profits and contribute little to the repercussions. If we factored in the total costs of our energy sources renewable would be even more attractive. Given the fact that the energy companies have known about climate change for decades [1], at what point is it expected that they use some of the incredible profits made at the planets expense to mitigate those costs? It is adding insult to injury that these companies are able to avoid a lot of taxes [2] that would at least contribute to public funds being used to combat climate change. That isn't even counting the millions (billions?) that have been spent on misinformation. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-... [2] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/03/07/27-giant-profitable-companies-paid-no-taxes/81399094/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/03/07/27-g...

shoo 10y ago
i agree. but you're also letting the other side of the deal - consumers of energy produced by polluting energy sources - off the hook. the consumers benefit from this state of affairs too.
- ivraatiems 10y ago
  What are consumers supposed to do? In many places there is no choice; you get the power the single utility company around provides you. It comes from wherever it comes from. Generating your own is not economically feasible for most.
  - shoo 10y ago
    if consumers live in a democratic country they need to demand policy change to regulate this. some people frame climate change as an "emergency". politically, it is only an emergency if enough people think it is an emergency and are prepared to vote along these lines. i'd agree it is an emergency. but i don't think a majority of people do - so politically, it isn't an emergency.

louithethrid 10y ago

To patch the allemende-bug, you would have to introduce incentives via politics, but incentives are either gambled around or with, or corroded away by cooperate-kapital not beeing busy. So to fix it, you need a law that is gambling waterteight - in all participating countrys- and you need to bind law corroding kapital. Now its basically impossible to change this democratically - any initiative would be bend, distorted and defused long before it would reach the capital. The only feasible option - is to alter consumer behaviour. For this, the real economic footprint needs to be visible on all products, with the easy scan of a app. All of it. Meaning, you need to pay people all along the supply chain to spy on the origins and processes that produce something. You could then really see what in your life is destroying that reef - and what alternatives there are. And then you could vote with your feet. And to add incentive for those who do not care (we are all dead in the long term), some publicly visible environmental kharma point system, could be the final incentive. Maybe- something aking to jewelery- you only get, if you sacrifice part of your lifestyle for the planet.

dakota_101 10y ago

Seems weird to be talking about this in terms of Trillions of dollars of impact to the economy. I get it that it can be helpful to show people how bad it could be but I'm not sure it does a great job at that even. It would be like saying: Lack of breathable air could cost $76 Trillion Globally

macawfish 10y ago
Some people only care about money.
- monk_e_boy 10y ago
  How do you fix that? We need some sort of karma for good deeds. I can up vote comments on hn without spending "votes", I don't run out of them. Using them as a sort of currency would be interesting. Would this solve problems that aren't profit making? Like fixing the climate.
  - zo1 10y ago
    And where would these magical "votes" come from? Would we be born with a finite amount of them, and get to use them periodically? Say, like an election and voting? In addition, let's say I get lots of these "votes". What good are they to me? What value to they possess/represent? Do we treat them as magical brownie points that are monetarily value-less, in which case, only those that care for the prestige of having many of them would chase them. The rest would ignore it. Do we punish individuals for having too little? How about punishing those individuals that misuse them? Sell them? Anywho, playing a bit of devil's advocate there. But sounds like what you're suggesting is money. It's available right now, and yet people don't go around donating ridiculous-enough amounts of it to make an appreciable difference in "karma" regarding the environment. That's why we're having this discussion, even.
    - monk_e_boy 10y ago
      I am poor. I would like to fix the environment. How do I affect change? How do I go from helpless to helpful? I have no money, I have little spare time, limited range of travel. We see these unfixable problems with climate and no real way of tackling them. I spent an hour picking up plastic from the beach, could I turn that time and effort into something? Like money or karma or something else. I can't do it for free as I need money for food. No one wants to pay me to do it. How do we solve this?

sporkenfang 10y ago

This is a problem tech could solve. I don't see what stops us from monetizing saving the reefs via charging for eco-friendly tourism in pristine ocean.

SamPhillips 10y ago

If you're concerned by this, a group of us tech folks will be marching with the Climate March on April 29th. Join us! https://techsector.peoplesclimate.org/ https://techsector.peoplesclimate.org/

sparkzilla 10y ago

This is a perfect example of unwarranted alarmism. It links coral bleaching to global warming without any proof, while making ridiculous economic claims. Locals [1] and local scientists [2] disagree with the claim that the reef is irreparably damaged. Here's the quote: We’ve also seen reports that 35 per cent, or even 50 per cent, of the entire reef is now gone. However, based on our combined results so far, the overall mortality rate is 22 per cent — and about 85 per cent of that die-off has occurred in the far north between the tip of Cape York and just north of Lizard Island, 250km north of Cairns. Seventy-five per cent of the reef will come out in a few months time as recovered. I also urge anyone who is sick of this kind of science scaremongering to follow junkscience.com [3] [1] http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/reef-tourism-operators-find-less-than-five-per-cent-of-coral-dead-under-extreme-bleaching/news-story/ http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/reef-tourism-o... [2] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/great-barrier-reef-scientists-exaggerated-coral-bleaching/news-story/99810c83f5a420727b12ab255256774b http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/great-barrier-re... [3] http://junkscience.com http://junkscience.com

Proven 10y ago

Haha, it "could" cost $100T too

titojankowski 10y ago

Anyone else see massive opportunities here for entrepreneurs? I like to say "climate change will create the first trillionaire". I can't help but imagine the powerful technologies and systems that will be developed out of this. Eco-friendly tourism, environmental sensors, synthetic biology reef protectants.

SerpentJoe 10y ago
If we assume that governments and businesses start giving a shit then many forms of magic are possible.
- titojankowski 10y ago
  A "Hacker's Guide to Climate Change" would be cool...equip hackers to make the magic :)

tn135 10y ago

Ah! the fear mongering. There is science and then there is stamp collecting. This report is more like later. These reports must be taken with grain of salt. Not only the study is dubious but it essentially talks of all coral reefs across the world doing extinct. There is good chance that coral reefs will reduce in their size over next few decades but they are unlikely to totally disappear. Neither will the jobs and other opportunities disappear with it. A rare coral reef is a bigger tourism destination. Also $1T is a figure I will totally ignore. If we have to protect coral reefs it is because it is an important part of ecosystem that I would like to conserve for my kids and grand kids (and I would like to pay for the conservation efforts too). I think the probability that US will go into another recession over either war or some other government scheme gone wrong is much higher over next 30 years. We will likely lose lot more that $1T that time.

tkyjonathan 10y ago

If you do not want to wait for your government to take action about climate change, you do have an individual option; http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/08/opinions/go-vegan-save-the-planet-wang/ http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/08/opinions/go-vegan-save-the... And heres how: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=vegan+what+I+eat+in+a+day https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=vegan+what+I+ea...

Rylinks 10y ago

>The loss of Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef alone costing that region 1 million visitors a year, imperilling 10,000 jobs and draining $1 billion from the economy This is terrible for Queensland, but it doesn't support the $1T global cost. Most of these tourism dollars will go to other attractions that are slightly worse on the margin--they won't just disappear.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 10y ago

At this point anybody not calling for more nuclear power plants is just ignoring reality.