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

Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 204 posts

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#101

Post by milesrout »

jozzas wrote: post #49
crawrey wrote: post #47

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…

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, re…

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.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#102

Post by josscrowcroft »

tim333 wrote: post #97
josscrowcroft wrote: post #96

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?

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

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

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#103

Post by milesrout »

catmanjan wrote: post #20
H4CK3RM4N wrote: post #4

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.

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.

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.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#104

Post by robryan »

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #79
vacri wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Contrary to environmental preservation, a gay marriage law costs nothing. So if a strong majority supports it, why don't they enact it to get a free popularity boost?

Current government is held hostage by its far right faction who wants to avoid an open vote on gay marriage.

The left would now allow an open vote for it but when they were last in government the tide of public opinion probably hadn't turned far enough yet.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#105

Post by saiya-jin »

ckastner wrote: post #61
flukus wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 mo…

You just listed two incidents which, on the face of it, support the grandparent's argument.

This is a classic survivorship bias - we wouldn't be discussing here if we didn't make it that time. In situations like [1], we are here by pure luck (isn't all life?)

We can discuss to great lengths how resilient is some Mad max-ish civilization would be, but in reality we have no clue. Especially about things we have no clue not taking into consideration

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#106

Post by laumars »

milesrout wrote: post #100
spodek wrote: post #89

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 ca…

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…

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.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#107

Post by KnightOfWords »

milesrout wrote: post #100
spodek wrote: post #89

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 ca…

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…

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...

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#108

Post by dingo_bat »

ohashi wrote: post #29

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 curre…

> Coral reefs are magical places

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

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#109

Post by jsperson »

milesrout wrote: post #100
spodek wrote: post #89

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 ca…

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…

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.

Post reply on HN