Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/10/great-barrier-reef-terminal-stage-australia-scientists-despair-latest-coral-bleaching-data?

by mjfern • 9 years ago

352 188 9 years ago

theguardian.com

hoodoof3• 9 years ago

castratikron• 9 years ago

Yeah, good riddance!

hoodoof3• 9 years ago

cyberferret2• 9 years ago

I 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.

Oletros• 9 years ago

A good example of Poe's Law?

fersho311• 9 years ago

Hahaha thank you for this satire. Haven't laughed this hard

orschiro2• 9 years ago

The sad fact is that even these devastating developments do not make us change systemically to the extent required to counterfeit them.

dmoy• 9 years ago

counteract?

orschiro2• 9 years ago

Haha, that is what I meant. Sorry for the error.

H4CK3RM4N2• 9 years ago

Sadly 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.

flukus8• 9 years ago

Most 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-termi...

H4CK3RM4N2• 9 years ago

I 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?

Diederich2• 9 years ago

If 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.

catmanjan2• 9 years ago

I 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.

vacri2• 9 years ago

It'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.

milesrout9• 9 years ago

I think you're wrong. I think that the Great Barrier Reef is something that average Australian really does care about. I think it's one of the few things that is capable of making people go 'oh my god, no, we have to do something'.

The thought that I've probably managed to miss my only opportunity in my life to see it is heartbreaking to me, and I'm a Kiwi, not an Australian. It's a national treasure. It's like, to me, the total destruction of the Pink And White Terraces in NZ. I will never, ever see them. Nobody will. And my future kids will never see the Great Barrier Reef.

snuxoll• 9 years ago

I wonder if there is any possibility of restoring the reef after we've gotten carbon in the atmosphere back down to livable levels for it. I'm sure it's basically impossible, but if we're approaching the point of no return maybe we can invest in preserving as much of the reef as we can in aquariums to make an attempt down the road.

The whole situation is depressing :(

huckyaus3• 9 years ago

See my comments elsewhere in the thread for an example of people/organisations that are involved in some fairly serious activism around these issues. They do exist.

Luminarys• 9 years ago

Although 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• 9 years ago

Sadly 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_Tarsius2• 9 years ago

This 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.

erikpukinskis5• 9 years ago

Mankind 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).

mistermann• 9 years ago

Without a massive population of worker bees, can we maintain the level of technological sophistication we've reached?

I suppose governments probably have that fairly well doomsday planned.

Red_Tarsius2• 9 years ago

But 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.

intrasight• 9 years ago

The topic of "Seveneves" by Neal Stephenson - which I did enjoy.

https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/Seveneves

enraged_camel2• 9 years ago

I believe the adaptability of humans is greatly exaggerated, mostly thanks to our hubris. We believe we will be able to use our intelligence to figure a way out of pretty much any problem. However, the fact of the matter is that our species has never been through any extinction-level events that would truly test our adaptability. Sure, we can adapt to localized or short-term problems extremely well, but how would we fare in an event the level of, say, the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event?

flukus8• 9 years ago

Mankind is absurdly resilient. We are like rats or cockroaches but a hundred times more adaptable.

Are we? We've been around for a fraction of the time and nearly gone extinct at least once (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory). We also have a tendency to build absurdly interconnected systems so a single failure has ripple effects, we see this in things like the late bronze age collapse where most civilizations in the Mediterranean disapeared (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse).

KnightOfWords2• 9 years ago

We'd be very difficult to wipe out, but our technology falls a long short of being able to construct self-sustaining environments. We rely on having a global supply train at our disposal, not something we'd have access to in the event of a major catastrophe.

pier252• 9 years ago

Billions of people could die. We might lose 99% of species.

You make it sound like this wasn't a huge deal.

taberiand• 9 years ago

It's the collapse of modern civilization that I worry about.

ohashi• 9 years ago

I 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_bat5• 9 years ago

Coral reefs are magical places

How so? How are they different from any other natural ecosystem?

pluteoid• 9 years ago

They 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• 9 years 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.

crawrey4• 9 years ago

I 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.

jozzas3• 9 years ago

The 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• 9 years ago

I 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.

stuaxo• 9 years ago

It would be good if it were possible to directly crowdfund some of this research, since they are obviously starved for cash.

milesrout9• 9 years ago

Honestly, there should be no 'engaging with farmers'. There shouldn't be 'reductions' in pesticide and fertiliser runoffs. Erosion shouldn't be 'managed'.

This shouldn't be a conversation. It's been conversation and compromise for far, far too long. Governments should be being firm with farmers, they're incredibly damaging to the environment and it's not even a lucrative industry.

Tossrock• 9 years ago

Sorry, you said the reef looks "indistinguishable to what it looked like 20-odd years ago." which implies it looks basically the same, but that seems at odds with the rest of what you're saying. Did you mean something besides "indistinguishable" ("unrecognizable", maybe?)

crawrey4• 9 years ago

Corrected, thanks. I'll put it down to lack of sleep :P.

ryankennedyio• 9 years ago

I grew up in Cairns & think that's a big part of why I'm so fascinated with marine life. I can happily spend a day watching almost any fish tank. My girlfriend has to drag me out of aquariums every time. It completely crushes me to think my (future) kids might not ever know what it was like.

I thoroughly urge anyone in the world with the means to do so, to visit and experience it.

sundvor2• 9 years ago

Travelled up to Cairns from Melbourne last year and visited the reefs on a day trip.

Whilst amazing, the bleaching had clearly started although not fully set in. It was as such a bitter sweet experience. I regret not going earlier, having been in Australia for over a decade - yet grateful to have seen it in some semblance of its glory before it's gone. And very sad - and angry - that it is going.

I am angry because we have direct control over the mining that contributes directly to this calamity. However the going rule is that politicians must bend over backwards to accommodate them; or I guess that's just what they pay for? It certainly feels as corrupt as.

FireBeyond2• 9 years ago

I went about 20 years ago on a scuba trip to the "Outer Reef" (25 mi offshore). Paid a few hundred dollars for a guided tour of a few reefs.

Blew my mind so much I got off the boat, handed over my credit card and said I'd be back the next day to do it again.

hannob• 9 years ago

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.

I'm surprised by you saying this.

I was in australia last year and saw TV news a couple of times. And multiple times climate change was mentioned as one of the election issues. Of course mentioning the issue doesn't mean it's being taken seriously or that politicians will do something about it. But I felt this seems to be at least a topic that is talked about.

Just to give you some contrast: Hillary Clinton completely stopped talking about Climate Change at all once Bernie Sanders was out of her way [1]. In Germany, there was a statistics about the topics of TV talk shows recently, which was picked up by a number of media outlets, because it had an overwhelming bias towards having the refugee crisis as the major topic. Talk shows about climate change? Zero.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/20/hillary-...

crawrey4• 9 years ago

You are right that it is an issue that is talked about and it was discussed in the lead up to the the 2016 election. However, since the election there has been very little attention paid to climate change and there is some evidence that Australia is on-track to be in violation of the Paris Agreement[1].

Australia chose to elect a party with policies that target greenhouse gas emissions the least, 26-28% 2005 levels by 2030, where the next most popular party has target of 45% 2005 levels by 2030.

The former Labor government introduced a tax on carbon emissions[2] and a mining resource rent tax[3] in 2012. These taxes were later repealed in 2014 by our current Liberal/National government. Since the repeal, our emissions have been steadily increasing[4].

Talk is cheap and when push comes to shove on climate change, the majority of Australian's give into the scaremongering of conservative politics.

[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-09/australias-energy-poli...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Australia

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minerals_Resource_Rent_Tax

[4] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-22/australia-greenhouse-g...

ericras• 9 years ago

I'm not worried: http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/reef-tourism-o...

> “Scientists had written off that entire northern section as a complete white-out,’’ Mr Eade said. “We expected the worst. But it is tremendous condition, most of it is pristine, the rest is in full recovery."
> “It wasn’t until we got underwater that we could get a true picture of what percentage of reef was bleached,’’ Mr Stephen said. “The discrepancy is phenomenal. It is so wrong. Everywhere we have been we have found healthy reefs."

Also: "Great Barrier Reef: scientists ‘exaggerated’ coral bleaching" http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/great-barrier-re...

> A full survey of the reef released yesterday by the authority and the Australian Institute of Marine Science said 75 per cent of the reef would escape unscathed.
> Dr Reichelt said the vast bulk of bleaching damage was confined to the far northern section off Cape York, which had the best prospect of recovery due to the lack of onshore development and high water quality.

fencepost• 9 years ago

Any non-paywalled sources? The original article does note that "The Queensland tourism industry raised questions about the reliability of the survey, saying scientists had previously made exaggerated claims about mortality rates and bleaching."

jozzas3• 9 years ago

There 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• 9 years ago

What can we do? Serious question.

flukus8• 9 years ago

Immediately 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.

worldsayshi2• 9 years ago

As 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.

pier252• 9 years ago

Even 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.

Baeocystin2• 9 years ago

Preserve what we can in aquariums around the world so that we'll have reef seed species available as areas become more habitable again.

Identify areas that are become more hospitable, and work on establishing reefs there.

Expand artificial reef building, to help make up for lost area.

Cut carbon emissions, and work on finding ways to sequester what has already been released.

No one thing will be the fix, but they all have a role to play.

flukus8• 9 years ago

Preserve what we can in aquariums around the world so that we'll have reef seed species available as areas become more habitable again.

Can the worlds aquariums store a fraction of the biodiversity of the reef?

Expand artificial reef building, to help make up for lost area.

It would take a massive engineering effort to make a dent in the area the Reef covers.

jbverschoor2• 9 years ago

There's a guy in Florida who is growing the florida coral reef at a much higher rate than usual.

digitalzombie• 9 years ago

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/scientists-try-regrow-dying-c...

https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/423696/a-coral-reef-...

Are you referring to this guy?

emmelaich• 9 years ago

I suspect not much, as far as climate change goes.

We can do a LOT better in terms of pollution.

dingo_bat5• 9 years ago

A better question would be: why should we care? I really don't see much value in spending a lot of effort and money into protecting a coral reef.

kerbalspacepro2• 9 years ago

Coral reefs are like the rainforests of the sea: they hold an immense amount of biodiversity and life. They are also a carbon sink:

Coral reefs play a critical role in the carbon cycle of our planet, by taking calcium ions and dissolved carbon dioxide from the water and turning it into calcium carbonate forming their hard skeleton. http://www.reefrecovery.org/coral-reefs/

czechdeveloper• 9 years ago

Because we, humans, are destroying planet we live on. You not seeing why we should even care makes me sad.

kakarot10• 9 years ago

Are you asking for evidence of environmental utility provided by reef systems? There are plenty and my sister post already mentioned some of them.

But the metric of "does putting in all this money and effort to fix the problem we created give us something back in return?" is absolutely poisonous. It's that selfish "is preserving this environmental habitat that has been around for millions of years worth my time or money?" that allowed us to dig this grave in the first place.

Diederich2• 9 years ago

If 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.

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.

huckyaus3• 9 years ago

My 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

[1] https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/great-barrier-reef--3/the...

altstar• 9 years ago

Why only Liberal electorates? Queensland government is Labor. Why not target them?

huckyaus3• 9 years ago

Because 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

psynapse• 9 years ago

This 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• 9 years ago

The 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/

kerbalspacepro2• 9 years ago

The Guardian article is about a 2017 event, not the 2016 event that the BG article references.

Slobbinson• 9 years ago

Pauline 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• 9 years ago

https://climateslamdown.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/easterbu...

spodek2• 9 years ago

Many 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=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.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• 9 years ago

How 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.

spodek2• 9 years ago

I don't know how it is possible within the current system to back down en-masse in the way you suggest.

The system will change. It's already changing. The question is whether we design and follow the change or nature does it for us. The demise of the world's largest living structure is just the latest in decades of evidence. How much more do we need?

This community is so enthusiastic about going to Mars, universal basic income, and other challenges to current systems. Why so resistant to this change? So enthusiastic about entrepreneurship solving problems except this fundamental belief that economies must grow. Are we so tied to bacon, big houses, and regular trips to Paris? Humans lived for hundreds of thousands of years with cities of millions of people without planes, cars, and so on. We don't need them for happiness. Nor do we need to get rid of them. We can live a modern life with modern medicine, modern toys, the internet and so on, we just have to curb it a bit. Well, more than a bit.

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.

Hence my point that changing my behavior improved my life and that I'm not special. Simplifying and reducing consumption from our culture's wastefulness isn't sacrifice. You don't have to keep believing it is.

Simplifying and reducing consumption can materially improve your life. Even if it didn't, why not take responsibility for how your actions affect others like you wish past generations did instead of killing the Great Barrier Reef? Why not decouple your happiness from burning fossil fuels and owning more stuff? You don't have to keep waiting for everyone else.

cwkoss• 9 years ago

Our current status-quo system requires perpetual growth to maintain debt obligations (money is created by debt, which comes with interest. if economy doesn't grow, there must be defaults)

Perpetual growth and protection of natural resources are inherently at odds with each other. Until the global economy fundamentally changes, things are only going to keep getting worse.

milesrout9• 9 years ago

Quite frankly I think blaming it on flying is incredibly offensive.

It's got nothing, at all, to do with cars or flying. They're tiny pollutors compared to industry, specifically the dairy industry, transportation by truck and manufacturing things in China.

Sure we could fly less and drive less but that would do fuck all, and certainly having fewer kids isn't going to solve any problems. Having fewer kids in the west actually just means white people having fewer kids in the west, we're well below replacement rate and are being rapidly replaced by people coming from high birthrate countries like India.

The only thing that will actually solve the problem is sustained government intervention in trucking, dairy and industry, worldwide.

laumars3• 9 years ago

While I don't disagree with the facts you presented, I do disagree with the sentiment. Your argument is akin to passing the buck, yet the issue of climate change affects us all. Maybe let's ignore the GP's examples of flying and instead discuss industry. How many of us by pre-packaged foods or have Amazon Prime accounts and use it to order stuff we could just as easily get from our local shops? How many of us support wasteful industries because they sell our products cheaper or manufacture more desirable products? How many of us with access to clean water still buy bottled? Or buy fruits out of season and other import produce?

Most of us westerners have a pretty decent standard of living. Yet we blame industry for the environmental costs of our standard of living while simultaneously paying industry for their services. So I think we are just as much to blame. And by "we" I am completely blaming myself too.

KnightOfWords2• 9 years ago

Tackling the problem from the top-down (regulation) and bottom-up (personal responsibility) is the most effective path forward. The first step is education, actually understanding what contributes to our carbon footprint and more importantly radiative forcing. This gets complicated fast (here's an article on aviation: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/sep/09/car...), but reasonable ballpark estimates can be made.

Transportation accounts for about 14% of emissions, compared to 24% for agriculture and 21% for industry. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...

jsperson• 9 years ago

Offensive!? You're of course free to get offended, but pointing out that flying pollutes a lot relative to the proposed limits is certainly valid.

I think the point is that there is an opportunity to take personal responsibility here. Why wait for government? Using a couple of your examples, buying less stuff made in China would go a long way.

boralben• 9 years ago

My employer pays for its software developers to attend one conference per year. While software conferences can be terrific learning experiences, most of us consider this perk to be something similar to a paid vacation. Many people try to find conferences in exciting, far-flung locations.

It seems like the software conference industry is one that could be a leader in creating "virtual tracks" for conferences. This would have the effect of reducing unnecessary airplane trips while also opening conferences up to larger audiences.

There is a group within academia that is promoting this approach: https://academicflyingblog.wordpress.com/

Their FAQ has a lot of really solid information, and some of the answers really resonated with me in terms of "Do I really need to physically be at this conference?" FAQ: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1URRRh4zMSpvtZY08F9-Rkbx0...

J-dawg2• 9 years ago

Having more kids in western cultures contributes significantly.

I wonder how much longer before the idea of limiting people's reproduction is on the table.

Someone who never has kids can probably drive a Hummer and spend every weekend jetting off somewhere, and their lifetime carbon footprint will still be many times lower than someone who has several children.

I understand that developed country carbon footprints are vastly higher than developing countries, but there are countries that are developing rapidly yet still have fertility rates of 4 or 5 children per woman. We can be pretty sure that those people aspire to having a western-style carbon footprint (and to be fair, why shouldn't they) either through migrating to a developed country or their own country developing.

When do we start saying that we need to limit the number of people who can exist? I don't see how it could ever be practically possible (outside of a regime like China, and even then it backfired horribly) but it if it could somehow be enforced it would probably be the best (and fairest) thing we could do.

Side note: for those of us who worry about this stuff, it can be hard to comprehend how little the average person cares about it. We have these TV shows in the UK which show people going through the process of buying a holiday home (British people are obsessed with houses/real estate to the point where watching other people buy a house is a recreational activity). The other day there was a family with 4 kids buying a holiday home in Florida. So they're planning to spend the rest of their lives jetting their whole (large) family across the Atlantic a few times a year. As someone who feels kinda guilty every time I fly, it just left me thinking that I'm wasting my mental energy on caring about this stuff when other people care so little.

knz• 9 years ago

Many OECD nations are barely at or even below replacement levels for fertility. Few people are having 4+ kids.

https://data.oecd.org/pop/fertility-rates.htm

M_Grey3• 9 years ago

I'm doing my part, no kids, and I won't be having any. Unfortunately human nature isn't going to change, and we're not going to get out of this one with our civilization intact; we're probably cooked.

Recurecur4• 9 years ago

"I'm doing my part, no kids, and I won't be having any. Unfortunately human nature isn't going to change, and we're not going to get out of this one with our civilization intact; we're probably cooked."

Utter nonsense (other than you not having kids, that's your choice).

Market forces will in fact solve the "problem" (to the extent it is one) of excess CO2 output. If it is finally determined that CO2 based warming is problematic, the solution will be advanced technology, including high-intensity energy sources like nuclear power. In the absolute worst case, orbital sunshades or other mitigations will be used to decrease insolation.

The laughable thing about this article is the idea that any amount of spending by the Australian government to "take decisive action on climate change" would help. If Australia completely stopped producing CO2, it would have no measurable effect on water temperatures around the Great Barrier Reef, especially since the argument is that current CO2 levels are causing the problem. Then there's the fact that Australia is a minor contributor to global CO2 emissions...

What's needed on "climate change" is a lot more rational thought, and a lot less hysteria.

kakarot10• 9 years ago

I've never flown on a commercial jet, have no kids, limit my consumption of meat and other products of the corrupt agriculture industry, and I don't own a car because I don't support extortion via insurance and I have a hard time convincing myself it isn't selfish to add more greenhouse gases to the air when I know better, even though "it's just me" and I'm one person.

Don't be so quick to judge the members of your community, maybe consider a less accusing tone, I dunno. But you're pointing your finger at everyone and no one.

brookside• 9 years ago

First of all, that is amazing. But you are obviously the extreme exception (at least from my observations of other humans in America).

hueving• 9 years ago

There are those of us that also think asking people to 'cut back' voluntarily like this is a fucked solution out of the gate.

I continue to fly across the country for work because refusing only hurts my career and gives me a slight sense of smug superiority. Someone else on standby would just take my seat anyway and my refusal would have had no impact (other than a negligible reduction in revenue for the airline).

Instead I actually do something that might have an impact and I donate to organizations researching alternative energy or just straight up planting trees.

I would rather just have the price of carbon emissions priced into the airline tickets than stupidly trying to shame anyone who travels.

josscrowcroft2• 9 years ago

Is 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• 9 years ago

The problem seems to be the water temperature. It's not easy to fix.

josscrowcroft2• 9 years ago

Again speaking from zero expertise, would it be possible to genetically engineer coral lifeforms to adapt to higher temperatures?

harry84• 9 years ago

I'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.

kakarot10• 9 years ago

Wow 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?

harry84• 9 years ago

I 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.

zipwitch2• 9 years ago

This 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-co...

ozy• 9 years ago

So ... when do we shoot some rockets high up and spray something reflecting sunlight, changing earths albedo? Plan B?

Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

Related Stories