7 ms·

Since 2016, Half of All Coral in the Great Barrier Reef Has Died

132 points by esalazar 8y ago

lama_me 8y ago
what have we done to this world :(
- Waterluvian 8y ago
  If we feel guilty enough maybe we can work on seeding other planets. If we just miss nature for our own enjoyment maybe we can throw a bunch of science at it. I think there's this desire to cling onto what's original or authentic. I'm trying to see past that because it's so delicate that it's basically transient.
  - bigiain 8y ago
    <cynical response>I wonder what historical and eons-old natural wonder on Mars we're going to ruin when we start driving around on it in a fleet of Tesla Model S and growing potatoes by burning surplus rocket fuel?
    - Waterluvian 8y ago
      I understand the concern but I just see it as two equal choices: preserve what's there or make something new. Perhaps easier to understand if it's "let's take some time to understand what's there before we go make something new." Surely this is an unapproved perspective. It goes against the popular will of science and really goes against our inherent desire not to muck stuff up. I just can't bring myself to really see it being wrong.
      - bigiain 8y ago
        Yeah - the 13 year old scifi reading nerd in me would prefer we build a Dyson Sphere or a Niven Ring - I'd mind much less about environmentally fucking up something we built ourselves... (The downside being that probably requires dismantling both Mars and Earth for construction materials... But hey - we've fucked The Great Barrier Reef already, so why not???)
- taberiand 8y ago
  We've collectively chosen short term excess over long term sustainability. I used to have hope; now it seems past the point of no return. I figure we should just try to enjoy it all while we still can, like everybody else.
  - dmichulke 8y ago
    > We've collectively chosen short term excess over long term sustainability No. Damage to the environment is done because it's cheap. And why is it cheap? Because the owner of the thing (the state, the town, the "community") doesn't care. Now if there were a real market driven cost (throwing away a plastic bag or a TV would actually cost something), you would reconsider. Next in line is consumption: How about the houses built everywhere on the planet with low interest rates that will never be inhabited because there are not enough people nearby to inhabit it. Next is (as an example) military production in the US (>= 10x the military budget of Germany or Russia), using up money to destroy even more things of value. There are a million reasons and most of them lead down to - low interest rates (incentivizing producers to produce things people wouldn't want, disincentivizing consumers to save) - a lack of democracy and/or accountability of the people in charge (those wars weren't exactly a consequence of people protesting on the streets) - "public ownership" which basically translates to "no one gives a f* because it's not theirs'" - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons I suppose the last point is probably the least orthodox, so here are two sources that discuss the issue: Audio: https://mises.org/ko/library/5-environmentalism https://mises.org/ko/library/5-environmentalism PDF: https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/Environmentalism%20and%20Economic%20Freedom%20The%20Case%20for%20Private%20Property%20Rights_2.pdf?file=1&type=document https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/Environmentalism%20and%...
    - opportune 8y ago
      You seem to think nobody would ever damage the environment of land they owned. Except that oil companies and other industries do that constantly, across the world, to make money. And in addition to that, throwing things away does have a cost, that’s what we have garbagemen for. It just turns it to be extremely cheap for the most part. Honestly people like you that worship the free market as a panacea confuse me. How does a free market prevent me from dumping toxic waste in the ocean? How does it prevent micro plastics from flowing down rivers into the ocean? How does it prevent me from releasing however much CO2 into the air as I want? I just don’t see it.
aplummer 8y ago
Ive been to Airlie / port Douglas every couple years for a decade, it’s unbelievable how incredible the place was and how it just isn’t now. First couple times was exactly like Finding Nemo, now it’s a barren wasteland (and this is going to spots that are supposed to be better). Beaches in QLD still best in the world if you’re visiting, give the diving a pass or manage expectations unless you’re quite south
- somishere 8y ago
  Barren wasteland is a bit far fetched, not sure which sites you are visiting off Port/Airlie but most of the tourist operator sites are still in fairly good shape, except maybe low Isles i.e. not pristine but they remain some of the best in the world and worth a visit. Lots of endemic species/corals etc. Which isn't to say there isn't a problem, the reports are correct, the signs are there, and repeats of the bleaching events of the past few years will definitely lead to the wasteland you describe (as seen in areas of the gbr and many of the other Pacific and american reefs). The original numbers were 90% of the reef had died, what this actually meant was that of all the sites surveyed 90% showed some sign of bleaching - which basically means stress due to heat exposure. The death bit comes later when the coral doesn't have time to rejuvinate.
  - aplummer 8y ago
    And that’s the thing maybe it’s great comparative to the rest of the world, but not itself. Was with tour operators in 2015 so youd think it was the good spots, going again in a month so hopefully looking ok.
matte_black 8y ago
I always wanted to see this Great Barrier Reef since I was a small child, now it looks like there might not be any of it left by the time I get there. Is it even worth it at this point, or should I just look at pictures and imagine what once was?
- matuszeg 8y ago
  you should go. It's not all gone yet.
  - matte_black 8y ago
    How much time would I have left?
    - hoodoof 8y ago
      Well if half died in the last two years there's probably a calculation to work out how much will remain when you get there.
  - tonyedgecombe 8y ago
    Yes, fly there, pump more CO2 into the air thereby increasing ocean acidification to escalate coral bleaching.
    - belorn 8y ago
      I don't know. If there is no money that get infused into the local environment around the corals then less people will work to fix it. It is also rather well established that conservation must focus on awareness or things don't usually improve by them self. Comparing the drawback to the benefits of tourism, I suspect the benefits win.
      - vaughanb 8y ago
        >If there is no money that get infused into the local environment around the corals then less people will work to fix it. The ocean has warmed to the point where to coral cannot survive. The reef is H-U-G-E (1,400 miles long according to the article). If there was a technology capable of reducing the ocean temperature around the reef, the waste heat the technology would create would cause more problems elsewhere. The reef is an indication that the global warming problem has become to big for human technology to fix.
hoodoof 8y ago
x
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- cup-of-tea 8y ago
  It turns out cutting is one of the hardest things for people to do. Just look at how many obese people there are who cannot reduce their intake despite the immediate inconvenience and discomfort of being fat, not to mention the risk to their health. If so many can't even do it for themselves or their children, there's not much hope of them doing it for others. It also leaves me utterly convinced that nobody really believes in god or an afterlife. People constantly demonstrate that the only thing that matters to them is that today is at least as convenient as yesterday. No change will ever happen from the bottom up. And while our "leaders" continue to be people with already massively inflated lifestyles, nothing will happen from the top down either.
  - gepi79 8y ago
    IMO main the problems are poverty and old traditions (e.g. animal products) and general confusion of priorities. The bad media sells the latest news or problem as the most important news or problem. People elect or at least accept the politicians. People pay for or at least accept the bad greedy business practices of small and big companies in the name of holy competition and individual struggle for life. Too many people have faith that god (notably in the USA) and the traditional conservative political parties do what should be done. There is a lack of motivation and desire for life changing real science and technology as national priority to end poverty, to bring wealth to all, to prolong life (anti-aging) and to protect nature including coral reefs. Science and technology would allow people to eat all they want and do no sports and still look like models and be perfectly healthy. Cutting and austerity is not a strategy and not a replacement of urgent progress of science and technology. Cutting and austerity is an unfortunate tactic because of lack of science and technology.
    - 8y ago
Qworg 8y ago
Corals are fascinating creatures and incredible symbiots. Vulcan (where I work) has been contributing to the advancement of science to save reefs. We've funded Ruth Gates and Madeleine VanOppen's work in human-assisted evolution of corals, among other projects. I recommend everyone watch "Chasing Corals" on Netflix if they want a more detailed explanation of problems and potential solutions. Trailer: https://youtu.be/Mmqqi_DnPEE https://youtu.be/Mmqqi_DnPEE
- kraftman 8y ago
  Any suggestions for the best place to donate to have the most impact?
  - selectodude 8y ago
    I mean, the coral are dying because the ocean temperature has gotten too high. Donate to yourself and stop using fossil fuels, that’s the only way out at this point.
    - hulahoof 8y ago
      I often hear this, and for the sake of discussion I tried to find some numbers. I could mainly find presentation notes[1], and half page (quite similarly structured) posts, even from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority[2] Does anyone have a link to the research behind these releases? I don't doubt the effect of raising acidity and temperature, but would like to see a comparison to the aftermath of oil spills, radiation leaks etc. throughout the Pacific. [1] https://archive.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/expeditions/temp-acidity/ocean-temp-acidity-508.pdf https://archive.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/expeditions/temp-... [2] http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/managing-the-reef/threats-to-the-reef/climate-change/how-climate-change-can-affect-the-reef/rising-sea-temperatures http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/managing-the-reef/threats-to-the-re...
    - lukas_tr 8y ago
      Your individual impact is minuscle compared to what you can achieve with targeted dontations or activism. It's a good thing to start with your own lifestyle, but if you do only that, you won't have much impact. For example, your daily CO2 emission is 10-20 tons per year. This is the same amount that can be saved with a donation of only $27 to a highly effective climate charity: https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/report/cool-earth/ https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/report/cool-earth/
somishere 8y ago
People interested in joining a movement that engages with climate change and the future of the reef (through circular economy principles) should check out Citizens: https://citizensgbr.org/s/39cB https://citizensgbr.org/s/39cB
peterbraden 8y ago
Is there any way to farm coral in more temperate waters? Reef fish are very valuable so it could even be commercially viable.
- pvaldes 8y ago
  Is a extremely complex ecosystem. Yes, you can grow coral in captivity. Some species are much more difficult to keep alive than other, but can be done. Is done since years in aquariums. The problem is that this not the same as cloning a entire ecosystem with a net of 10.000 species living together. You can't do it in the sea otherwise, because there is not a lot of accurate and still free areas. Coral needs a lot of light. Must be shallow. Pirate and lawful fishing, commercial sea routes, tourism (coral reef attracts big predators like sharks), and a net of vested interests will block it. And you'll need to wait 3000 years to have a coral reef at '3000 years level', of course. Corals are terribly slow and fight with their neighbors all the time. Such project would be extremely expensive.
  - somishere 8y ago
    There's already projects doing this. Both on the GBR and in places like Florida in the USA. The coral being grown is mainly staghorn due to its rapid growth cycles with the idea that it can help replenish high value sites only, i.e. not the whole reef. These kind of measures are seen as being part of a spectrum of solutions. Check out the Reef Restoration Project: https://citizensgbr.org/c/coral-nurseries https://citizensgbr.org/c/coral-nurseries
    - pvaldes 8y ago
      A staghorn-only reef is "equivalent" to a monoculture forest. Staghorn is the "Eucalyptus" of corals. Much faster than most species. Will overgrowth and overshadow more delicate species that rely in potent poisons and good niches to survive and grow much slower. Staghorn could make a good skeleton of a reef in, dunno, maybe 50 or 100 years and would attract a wonderful biodiversity if left alone; but is not enough in reef terms. we are talking of the cream of the cream. One of the finest works of this planet. The staghorn ecosystem is just a baby and a lot of species would be sorely missing.
akvadrako 8y ago
This article is strikes a rather alarmist tone which isn't warranted. This reef has been around in some form for 2M years and has experienced average global temperatures about 10 degrees colder and warmer. Reefs in the Arabian/Persian Gulf survive seawater temperatures about 8 degrees warmer than this one. If the heat is killing them, they just need time to adapt. "I think we are now getting to this idea that actually, in some cases, these mechanism can arise very quickly, within a few years." (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hot-water-corals-in-the-persian-gulf-could-help-save-the-world-s-reefs/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hot-water-corals-...)
throwaway84742 8y ago
Australia says it’s not dying tho, and “is healthy”: https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2016-12-great-barrier-reef-dying-australia.amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2016-12-great-bar...
- akvadrako 8y ago
  Hey, an AMP link in the wild.
  - throwaway84742 8y ago
    I’m a simple man: google gives me links, I copy them over.
OzClimate 8y ago
This is sad news. Will this encourage Australians to contribute their fair share in the fight against climate change? CO2 emissions (tons) per capita in 2016 Canada: 18.62 Australia: 17.22 USA: 15.56 Japan: 9.68 Netherlands: 9.61 Germany: 9.47 New Zealand: 7.14 UK: 5.59 Sweden: 4.54 http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2andGHG1970-2016&dst=CO2pc&sort=des9 http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2andGHG1970-2...
ollybee 8y ago
I reccomend this BBC radio program for an up to date discussion on the state of the Great Barrier Reef http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09snj90 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09snj90
nickthemagicman 8y ago
Its because there's too much regulation. The free market would never allow this to happen.

132 points by esalazar 8y ago

lama_me 8y ago

what have we done to this world :(

Waterluvian 8y ago
If we feel guilty enough maybe we can work on seeding other planets. If we just miss nature for our own enjoyment maybe we can throw a bunch of science at it. I think there's this desire to cling onto what's original or authentic. I'm trying to see past that because it's so delicate that it's basically transient.
- bigiain 8y ago
  <cynical response>I wonder what historical and eons-old natural wonder on Mars we're going to ruin when we start driving around on it in a fleet of Tesla Model S and growing potatoes by burning surplus rocket fuel?
  - Waterluvian 8y ago
    I understand the concern but I just see it as two equal choices: preserve what's there or make something new. Perhaps easier to understand if it's "let's take some time to understand what's there before we go make something new." Surely this is an unapproved perspective. It goes against the popular will of science and really goes against our inherent desire not to muck stuff up. I just can't bring myself to really see it being wrong.
    - bigiain 8y ago
      Yeah - the 13 year old scifi reading nerd in me would prefer we build a Dyson Sphere or a Niven Ring - I'd mind much less about environmentally fucking up something we built ourselves... (The downside being that probably requires dismantling both Mars and Earth for construction materials... But hey - we've fucked The Great Barrier Reef already, so why not???)
taberiand 8y ago
We've collectively chosen short term excess over long term sustainability. I used to have hope; now it seems past the point of no return. I figure we should just try to enjoy it all while we still can, like everybody else.
- dmichulke 8y ago
  > We've collectively chosen short term excess over long term sustainability No. Damage to the environment is done because it's cheap. And why is it cheap? Because the owner of the thing (the state, the town, the "community") doesn't care. Now if there were a real market driven cost (throwing away a plastic bag or a TV would actually cost something), you would reconsider. Next in line is consumption: How about the houses built everywhere on the planet with low interest rates that will never be inhabited because there are not enough people nearby to inhabit it. Next is (as an example) military production in the US (>= 10x the military budget of Germany or Russia), using up money to destroy even more things of value. There are a million reasons and most of them lead down to - low interest rates (incentivizing producers to produce things people wouldn't want, disincentivizing consumers to save) - a lack of democracy and/or accountability of the people in charge (those wars weren't exactly a consequence of people protesting on the streets) - "public ownership" which basically translates to "no one gives a f* because it's not theirs'" - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons I suppose the last point is probably the least orthodox, so here are two sources that discuss the issue: Audio: https://mises.org/ko/library/5-environmentalism https://mises.org/ko/library/5-environmentalism PDF: https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/Environmentalism%20and%20Economic%20Freedom%20The%20Case%20for%20Private%20Property%20Rights_2.pdf?file=1&type=document https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/Environmentalism%20and%...
  - opportune 8y ago
    You seem to think nobody would ever damage the environment of land they owned. Except that oil companies and other industries do that constantly, across the world, to make money. And in addition to that, throwing things away does have a cost, that’s what we have garbagemen for. It just turns it to be extremely cheap for the most part. Honestly people like you that worship the free market as a panacea confuse me. How does a free market prevent me from dumping toxic waste in the ocean? How does it prevent micro plastics from flowing down rivers into the ocean? How does it prevent me from releasing however much CO2 into the air as I want? I just don’t see it.

aplummer 8y ago

Ive been to Airlie / port Douglas every couple years for a decade, it’s unbelievable how incredible the place was and how it just isn’t now. First couple times was exactly like Finding Nemo, now it’s a barren wasteland (and this is going to spots that are supposed to be better). Beaches in QLD still best in the world if you’re visiting, give the diving a pass or manage expectations unless you’re quite south

somishere 8y ago
Barren wasteland is a bit far fetched, not sure which sites you are visiting off Port/Airlie but most of the tourist operator sites are still in fairly good shape, except maybe low Isles i.e. not pristine but they remain some of the best in the world and worth a visit. Lots of endemic species/corals etc. Which isn't to say there isn't a problem, the reports are correct, the signs are there, and repeats of the bleaching events of the past few years will definitely lead to the wasteland you describe (as seen in areas of the gbr and many of the other Pacific and american reefs). The original numbers were 90% of the reef had died, what this actually meant was that of all the sites surveyed 90% showed some sign of bleaching - which basically means stress due to heat exposure. The death bit comes later when the coral doesn't have time to rejuvinate.
- aplummer 8y ago
  And that’s the thing maybe it’s great comparative to the rest of the world, but not itself. Was with tour operators in 2015 so youd think it was the good spots, going again in a month so hopefully looking ok.

matte_black 8y ago

I always wanted to see this Great Barrier Reef since I was a small child, now it looks like there might not be any of it left by the time I get there. Is it even worth it at this point, or should I just look at pictures and imagine what once was?

matuszeg 8y ago
you should go. It's not all gone yet.
- matte_black 8y ago
  How much time would I have left?
  - hoodoof 8y ago
    Well if half died in the last two years there's probably a calculation to work out how much will remain when you get there.
- tonyedgecombe 8y ago
  Yes, fly there, pump more CO2 into the air thereby increasing ocean acidification to escalate coral bleaching.
  - belorn 8y ago
    I don't know. If there is no money that get infused into the local environment around the corals then less people will work to fix it. It is also rather well established that conservation must focus on awareness or things don't usually improve by them self. Comparing the drawback to the benefits of tourism, I suspect the benefits win.
    - vaughanb 8y ago
      >If there is no money that get infused into the local environment around the corals then less people will work to fix it. The ocean has warmed to the point where to coral cannot survive. The reef is H-U-G-E (1,400 miles long according to the article). If there was a technology capable of reducing the ocean temperature around the reef, the waste heat the technology would create would cause more problems elsewhere. The reef is an indication that the global warming problem has become to big for human technology to fix.

hoodoof 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
cup-of-tea 8y ago
It turns out cutting is one of the hardest things for people to do. Just look at how many obese people there are who cannot reduce their intake despite the immediate inconvenience and discomfort of being fat, not to mention the risk to their health. If so many can't even do it for themselves or their children, there's not much hope of them doing it for others. It also leaves me utterly convinced that nobody really believes in god or an afterlife. People constantly demonstrate that the only thing that matters to them is that today is at least as convenient as yesterday. No change will ever happen from the bottom up. And while our "leaders" continue to be people with already massively inflated lifestyles, nothing will happen from the top down either.
- gepi79 8y ago
  IMO main the problems are poverty and old traditions (e.g. animal products) and general confusion of priorities. The bad media sells the latest news or problem as the most important news or problem. People elect or at least accept the politicians. People pay for or at least accept the bad greedy business practices of small and big companies in the name of holy competition and individual struggle for life. Too many people have faith that god (notably in the USA) and the traditional conservative political parties do what should be done. There is a lack of motivation and desire for life changing real science and technology as national priority to end poverty, to bring wealth to all, to prolong life (anti-aging) and to protect nature including coral reefs. Science and technology would allow people to eat all they want and do no sports and still look like models and be perfectly healthy. Cutting and austerity is not a strategy and not a replacement of urgent progress of science and technology. Cutting and austerity is an unfortunate tactic because of lack of science and technology.
  - 8y ago

Qworg 8y ago

Corals are fascinating creatures and incredible symbiots. Vulcan (where I work) has been contributing to the advancement of science to save reefs. We've funded Ruth Gates and Madeleine VanOppen's work in human-assisted evolution of corals, among other projects. I recommend everyone watch "Chasing Corals" on Netflix if they want a more detailed explanation of problems and potential solutions. Trailer: https://youtu.be/Mmqqi_DnPEE https://youtu.be/Mmqqi_DnPEE

kraftman 8y ago
Any suggestions for the best place to donate to have the most impact?
- selectodude 8y ago
  I mean, the coral are dying because the ocean temperature has gotten too high. Donate to yourself and stop using fossil fuels, that’s the only way out at this point.
  - hulahoof 8y ago
    I often hear this, and for the sake of discussion I tried to find some numbers. I could mainly find presentation notes[1], and half page (quite similarly structured) posts, even from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority[2] Does anyone have a link to the research behind these releases? I don't doubt the effect of raising acidity and temperature, but would like to see a comparison to the aftermath of oil spills, radiation leaks etc. throughout the Pacific. [1] https://archive.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/expeditions/temp-acidity/ocean-temp-acidity-508.pdf https://archive.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/expeditions/temp-... [2] http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/managing-the-reef/threats-to-the-reef/climate-change/how-climate-change-can-affect-the-reef/rising-sea-temperatures http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/managing-the-reef/threats-to-the-re...
  - lukas_tr 8y ago
    Your individual impact is minuscle compared to what you can achieve with targeted dontations or activism. It's a good thing to start with your own lifestyle, but if you do only that, you won't have much impact. For example, your daily CO2 emission is 10-20 tons per year. This is the same amount that can be saved with a donation of only $27 to a highly effective climate charity: https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/report/cool-earth/ https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/report/cool-earth/

somishere 8y ago

People interested in joining a movement that engages with climate change and the future of the reef (through circular economy principles) should check out Citizens: https://citizensgbr.org/s/39cB https://citizensgbr.org/s/39cB

peterbraden 8y ago

Is there any way to farm coral in more temperate waters? Reef fish are very valuable so it could even be commercially viable.

pvaldes 8y ago
Is a extremely complex ecosystem. Yes, you can grow coral in captivity. Some species are much more difficult to keep alive than other, but can be done. Is done since years in aquariums. The problem is that this not the same as cloning a entire ecosystem with a net of 10.000 species living together. You can't do it in the sea otherwise, because there is not a lot of accurate and still free areas. Coral needs a lot of light. Must be shallow. Pirate and lawful fishing, commercial sea routes, tourism (coral reef attracts big predators like sharks), and a net of vested interests will block it. And you'll need to wait 3000 years to have a coral reef at '3000 years level', of course. Corals are terribly slow and fight with their neighbors all the time. Such project would be extremely expensive.
- somishere 8y ago
  There's already projects doing this. Both on the GBR and in places like Florida in the USA. The coral being grown is mainly staghorn due to its rapid growth cycles with the idea that it can help replenish high value sites only, i.e. not the whole reef. These kind of measures are seen as being part of a spectrum of solutions. Check out the Reef Restoration Project: https://citizensgbr.org/c/coral-nurseries https://citizensgbr.org/c/coral-nurseries
  - pvaldes 8y ago
    A staghorn-only reef is "equivalent" to a monoculture forest. Staghorn is the "Eucalyptus" of corals. Much faster than most species. Will overgrowth and overshadow more delicate species that rely in potent poisons and good niches to survive and grow much slower. Staghorn could make a good skeleton of a reef in, dunno, maybe 50 or 100 years and would attract a wonderful biodiversity if left alone; but is not enough in reef terms. we are talking of the cream of the cream. One of the finest works of this planet. The staghorn ecosystem is just a baby and a lot of species would be sorely missing.

akvadrako 8y ago

This article is strikes a rather alarmist tone which isn't warranted. This reef has been around in some form for 2M years and has experienced average global temperatures about 10 degrees colder and warmer. Reefs in the Arabian/Persian Gulf survive seawater temperatures about 8 degrees warmer than this one. If the heat is killing them, they just need time to adapt. "I think we are now getting to this idea that actually, in some cases, these mechanism can arise very quickly, within a few years." (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hot-water-corals-in-the-persian-gulf-could-help-save-the-world-s-reefs/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hot-water-corals-...)

throwaway84742 8y ago

Australia says it’s not dying tho, and “is healthy”: https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2016-12-great-barrier-reef-dying-australia.amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2016-12-great-bar...

akvadrako 8y ago
Hey, an AMP link in the wild.
- throwaway84742 8y ago
  I’m a simple man: google gives me links, I copy them over.

OzClimate 8y ago

This is sad news. Will this encourage Australians to contribute their fair share in the fight against climate change? CO2 emissions (tons) per capita in 2016 Canada: 18.62 Australia: 17.22 USA: 15.56 Japan: 9.68 Netherlands: 9.61 Germany: 9.47 New Zealand: 7.14 UK: 5.59 Sweden: 4.54 http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2andGHG1970-2016&dst=CO2pc&sort=des9 http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2andGHG1970-2...

ollybee 8y ago

I reccomend this BBC radio program for an up to date discussion on the state of the Great Barrier Reef http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09snj90 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09snj90

nickthemagicman 8y ago

Its because there's too much regulation. The free market would never allow this to happen.