Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Obituary: Great Barrier Reef

outsideonline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 54 posts

Re: Obituary: Great Barrier Reef

#21

Post by triplesec »

andrewwhartion wrote: post #19
kodroid wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes its quite irresponsible for an article like this to be published. Yes, the reef and life as we know it is under a huge thread from global warming and acidification etc, but this article is just misleading.

To quote the article... "With no force on earth capable of preventing the oceans from continuing to warm and acidify for centuries to come, Veron had no illusions about the future." I feel you're missing the point of the article. The reality is that the reef effectively has a terminal illness and there's little anyone can do now. Stage 5. Acceptance.

Do not go gentle into that good night.

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Re: Obituary: Great Barrier Reef

#22

Post by kodroid »

andrewwhartion wrote: post #19
kodroid wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes its quite irresponsible for an article like this to be published. Yes, the reef and life as we know it is under a huge thread from global warming and acidification etc, but this article is just misleading.

To quote the article... "With no force on earth capable of preventing the oceans from continuing to warm and acidify for centuries to come, Veron had no illusions about the future." I feel you're missing the point of the article. The reality is that the reef effectively has a terminal illness and there's little anyone can do now. Stage 5. Acceptance.

> The reality is that the reef effectively has a terminal illness and there's little anyone can do now

Totally understand that - but the article is written from the point of view that its already dead, which it of course is not, which will cause people to ignore the article. If I was diagnosed with a terminal illness today, I would not write to everyone I know saying I was dead, I would say I was dying.

Re: Obituary: Great Barrier Reef

#23

Post by ohthehugemanate »

triplesec wrote: post #9

This article commits a grave rhetorical error. The reef is not all dead (about 25% irreversibly I believe) but will be soon unless we stop most emissions. They don't make this clear at all. This leads readers to ignore and shy away from the issue further because we think it's too late. Humans like to pretend bad news isn't there and will jump on any excuse for cognitive avoidance.

it's because it is actually too late to do anything. If all human carbon emissions stopped tomorrow, the reef would still die. It would take 20 years or more for the environment to be able to support reef life again. At that point it might be a wonderful ground for a new reef, but there's no way the old one can survive that long. Anyway, that will only happen if carbon emissions hit zero tomorrow, which is obviously ludicrously implausible.

Re: Obituary: Great Barrier Reef

#24

Post by andrewwhartion »

kodroid wrote: post #22
andrewwhartion wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To quote the article... "With no force on earth capable of preventing the oceans from continuing to warm and acidify for centuries to come, Veron had no illusions about the future." I feel you're missing the point of the article. The reality is that the reef effectively has a terminal illness and there's little anyone can do now. Stage 5. Acceptance.

> The reality is that the reef effectively has a terminal illness and there's little anyone can do now Totally understand that - but the article is written from the point of view that its already dead, which it of course is not, which will cause people to ignore the article. If I was diagnosed with a terminal illness today, I would not write to everyone I know saying I was dead, I would say I was dying.

Sure, but when do you call time of death? (It's a rhetorical question)

I guess I'm happy to grant the author a little artistic license to make his point.

Re: Obituary: Great Barrier Reef

#25

Post by kodroid »

andrewwhartion wrote: post #24
kodroid wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reality is that the reef effectively has a terminal illness and there's little anyone can do now Totally understand that - but the article is written from the point of view that its already dead, which it of course is not, which will cause people to ignore the article. If I was diagnosed with a terminal illness today, I would not write to everyone I know saying I was dead, I would say I was dying.

Sure, but when do you call time of death? (It's a rhetorical question) I guess I'm happy to grant the author a little artistic license to make his point.

I know you said its rhetorical - but there can only be one answer to that question else we are all dead :p

Re: Obituary: Great Barrier Reef

#26

Post by lucozade »

kodroid wrote: post #14

Ignoring the errors in the article, what can we do? Due to the selfishness and shortsightedness of our race, I think the only way we are not totally screwed is if we (quickly) invent some tech that cleans up the atmosphere and oceans - not an easy task!

> if we (quickly) invent some tech that cleans up the atmosphere and oceans

Unfortunately this is based on the same logic that says re-writing from scratch is optimal as there's no bugs in code you haven't written yet.

As unhelpful as this may be, I would characterise our current state of knowledge as: we know enough about how our planet works to know that our planet's climate is changing largely due to our activity. We don't know enough to know what we can do that won't have (nasty) unintended consequences.

It makes me sad that I can conclude this but I don't see any evidence that I can't.

Re: Obituary: Great Barrier Reef

#27

Post by Angostura »

kodroid wrote: post #25
andrewwhartion wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but when do you call time of death? (It's a rhetorical question) I guess I'm happy to grant the author a little artistic license to make his point.

I know you said its rhetorical - but there can only be one answer to that question else we are all dead :p

So we should wait until the last polyp disapears?

Re: Obituary: Great Barrier Reef

#28

Post by 6nf »

kodroid wrote: post #14

Ignoring the errors in the article, what can we do? Due to the selfishness and shortsightedness of our race, I think the only way we are not totally screwed is if we (quickly) invent some tech that cleans up the atmosphere and oceans - not an easy task!

We will do nothing, it's too late.

Re: Obituary: Great Barrier Reef

#29

Post by anexprogrammer »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #16
kodroid wrote: post #14

Ignoring the errors in the article, what can we do? Due to the selfishness and shortsightedness of our race, I think the only way we are not totally screwed is if we (quickly) invent some tech that cleans up the atmosphere and oceans - not an easy task!

I don't like the "our race" generalisation, not when there's so many people committed to reducing carbon emissions and what-have-you; billions, if not trillions are being invested in creating clean alternatives, projects get both community and government support everywhere, countries are banning coal power plants and promoting and subsidising solar, wind and water power, big scientific teams are dedicating their live…

In aggregate it is "our race" as a generalisation. China is doing more than any other nation with clean energy, yet still has the vast numbers of coal power plants. There's no global agreement to not open new gas, coal and oil fields.

The UK govt just overruled local govt and forced acceptance of fracking in two locations. To meet the Paris accord that they signed, no new fossil fuel fields can be developed. To meet 1.5C they need to use no more than 1/3 of current fields[1]. Aus just opened a huge new coal field.

In doing that they've probably negated all the recycling and economising of every UK household. That single act makes it hard to see the point of continuing any individual effort. We're not doing enough, we're not going fast enough.

So whilst you and I may not suck, the folks that control the big levers seem to. There will come a point, I know not where - perhaps already passed, but soon(tm), where it's too late. That will be difficult to explain to my children. I'd prefer not to need to.

[1] https://newrepublic.com/article/136987/recalculating-climate...

Re: Obituary: Great Barrier Reef

#30

Post by anexprogrammer »

6nf wrote: post #28
kodroid wrote: post #14

Ignoring the errors in the article, what can we do? Due to the selfishness and shortsightedness of our race, I think the only way we are not totally screwed is if we (quickly) invent some tech that cleans up the atmosphere and oceans - not an easy task!

We will do nothing, it's too late.

Not true. We will continue accelerating until the impending crash is blindingly obvious. By which time it is far too late.
Post reply on HN