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

131–140 of 204 posts

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#131

Post by hannob »

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 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-...

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#132

Post by J-dawg »

knz wrote: post #127
J-dawg wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 a…

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

Isn't that basically a good thing though? I'm not wishing for humanity to die out, I just think that the best way to minimise net human misery is to have a smaller population. If it's happening naturally then all the better.

As "native" developed country populations decline, I can see increasing tension as developing country populations continue to grow rapidly.

There's also the small problem that our accepted economic models seem to rely on perpetual growth.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#133

Post by pier25 »

flukus wrote: post #74
good_vibes wrote: post #57

What can we do? Serious question.

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.

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.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#134

Post by worldsayshi »

flukus wrote: post #93
worldsayshi wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It could probably heal, it might even do so if we burned every fossil fuel on earth, but the incredibly amount of biodiversity in the reefs would be gone and that will never come back.

Never is a long time. I see what you mean but there isn't much point in being defeatist?

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#136

Post by inopinatus »

milesrout wrote: post #101
jozzas wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The often wafer-thin margins in the agriculture sector do not invalidate farmer's demands because food security is a most fundamental national security issue, even more so than energy or border control.

Conversely, and unfortunately, the Great Barrier Reef is managed by Australian governments basically as a tourist attraction, rather than a unique and fragile national treasure.

There is a (locally) famous quote from the Australian writer Donald Horne: "Australia is a lucky country, run by second-rate people who share its luck." (1964). A great many idiot politicians, jingoistic fools, and tourist offices are fond of repeating the first clause of this statement whilst omitting the latter, oblivious to the sharp irony of the full statement.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#137

Post by czechdeveloper »

dingo_bat wrote: post #110
good_vibes wrote: post #57

What can we do? Serious question.

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.

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

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#138

Post by jdhendrickson »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #37
Arizhel wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly right about maintaining this level of technology. Looking around at most people I know and am surrounded by, there's just no way we could keep the technology level we have now without such a large population: most people are just too inept. Kill off 99% and there won't be enough people to even keep the stuff we have working, let alone come up with anything new. Don't bet on governments having anything…

You don't need to keep all of it working. Most of it can fall apart. During the decline, important things will retract, move around, be protected. Look at what happened in the Holocaust. European Jewish culture wasn't wiped out. It was dealt a massive blow. Many important things were lost. But the community closed ranks and certain assets were protected too. This apocalyptic thinking is something you only do if you'r…

Unfortunately your estimates and blind hope seem to me rather naive. At one point humanity was reduced to 40 breeding pairs, that is a bad flu away from extinction.

An extinction event is not the same thing as a man made holocaust, it can be far more thorough. None the less, it seems more prudent to ameliorate the issue rather than just accept it as if it's inevitable.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#139

Post by laumars »

milesrout wrote: post #115
laumars wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, you're promoting the same fallacy: if something as a whole is bad then you're bad for doing it personally. You can't solve these problems by peer pressuring people into not supporting exploitative systems. Your argument is akin to people saying 'so much for being socialist, you own an iphone, capitalism made your iphone!'. Now I don't use amazon prime to get things that I could just as easily get from local shops…

> I don't buy fruits out of season. And I certainly don't buy 'pre-packaged foods'. What does that even mean? Do people actually buy plastic-wrapped boxes of lettuce from the supermarket? Really? Do people really buy bottled water? Why would they do that?

Sadly that happens a lot in the UK :(

> you are passing the buck when you act like it's my personal responsibility to fix the ills of the world

Where did I say it was your responsibility _alone_ to "fix the ills of the world"? What I said was we are all, collectively, responsible. Myself included. I also said industry exists to serve our consumption. This is me accepting my responsibility not me passing the buck.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#140

Post by twoodfin »

spodek wrote: post #99
scandox wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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…

What's the point of caring deeply about the Great Barrier Reef if the only offered solution is to accept that I can never visit it? That's selfish, of course, but so is demanding that others curtail their lifestyles so some faraway coral you care about doesn't disappear.

Frankly, the "challenge" of how to convince people to live as if most of the fruits of the industrial and technological revolutions never arrived is deeply unappealing. It's also nonsense on stilts: We don't get iPhones or specialized cancer cures without the consumer economy big enough to support demand for them.

Post reply on HN