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

Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’

edition.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 127 posts

Re: Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’

#61

Post by dredmorbius »

mirimir wrote: post #25
joe_the_user wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The population of humans is booming. What a shame you had to spoil your otherwise reasonable argument with this canard. In most areas of the global (the Americas, Europe, Asia above India), population is not booming but shrinking. Moreover, the destruction of various sorts we see hardly the result of booming population by itself but massive resource wastage of variety of sorts combined overall short-sightedness. Clim…

Sure, the human population is no longer growing exponentially. But mean resource use and pollution per capita is still growing. During the last century or two, when humanity released all that CO2, less than one billion people were responsible for most of it. And now we have maybe 2-3 billion more who demand such a lifestyle. So anyway, it's not population per se that matters. It's the sum over population times per ca…

NB, fossil fuel use was doubling every decade or two (3.5 - 7% annual growth) through much of the 20th century. This means that roughly half of all carbon emissions were from the most recent 10-20 years.

As of 2007, half of all emissions dated from about 1987.

http://www.mygreenlife.com.au/media/article-images/au-cumula...

Re: Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’

#62

Post by dredmorbius »

joe_the_user wrote: post #31
mirimir wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, the human population is no longer growing exponentially. But mean resource use and pollution per capita is still growing. During the last century or two, when humanity released all that CO2, less than one billion people were responsible for most of it. And now we have maybe 2-3 billion more who demand such a lifestyle. So anyway, it's not population per se that matters. It's the sum over population times per ca…

Sure, the human population is no longer growing exponentially. Which is to say it isn't "booming". But mean resource use and pollution per capita is still growing. Indeed total resource is huge and massively destructive but that use isn't even happening in any uniform per capita basis but rather some individuals, processes and organizations consume far more than others. Bitcoin for example, air conditioning Dubai for…

For most of human history, population growth was on the order of 0.04%/yr. It's been about 1.1% in recent decades, 25 times greater.

One might even say "booming".

Re: Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’

#63

Post by mirimir »

cam_l wrote: post #57
mirimir wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter. There's no way that Australia could "save" the reef. At best, maybe they could bioengineer something that looked enough like a reef to keep tourists happy. Or maybe just replace it with plastic and stuff ;)

Well, I mean, it matters .. both the corruption and the destruction of the reef (which by the way also faces more imminent threats from mining and agriculture).

I don't mean that destruction of the reef doesn't matter. But I do doubt that Australia can do much to help or hurt, at this point. Perhaps reducing runoff from mining and agriculture would help. But oceanic acidification is a global issue, and it's inevitable at this point.

Re: Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’

#64

Post by ggm »

6nf wrote: post #51
2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tourism dollars. The pollys would think more about saving it if money was on the line. And it is a spectacular place to visit.

It doesn't matter, Australian politicians can't save the reef no matter what they do. The reef isn't dying because of pollution or whatever, it's dying because the ocean temperature is increasing and nothing we do will stop that in time.

All the more reason to visit.

Re: Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’

#65

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

DavidPiper wrote: post #6

We're going on holiday to the Great Barrier Reef in a few months. I think it's quite likely to be the first and last time I see it in any state worth visiting for many years. Irrespective of how successful or unsuccessful the far-rights are in maintaining Australia's CO2 emission levels, I believe it's already too late - we've crossed from 'recovery is possible' to 'rebuilding is the only way' and that will take deca…

Counter opinion:

Hazelwood Power Station was decommissioned under the watch of a Liberal government.

The station was listed as the least carbon efficient power station in the OECD in a 2005 report by WWF Australia, making it one of the most polluting power stations in the world.[3] At 1.56 tonnes of CO2 for each megawatt hour of electricity, it was 50% more polluting than the average black coal power station in New South Wales or Queensland. Hazelwood emitted 14% of Victoria's annual greenhouse gas emissions and 3% of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_Power_Station

Re: Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’

#66

Post by tempestn »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #65
DavidPiper wrote: post #6

We're going on holiday to the Great Barrier Reef in a few months. I think it's quite likely to be the first and last time I see it in any state worth visiting for many years. Irrespective of how successful or unsuccessful the far-rights are in maintaining Australia's CO2 emission levels, I believe it's already too late - we've crossed from 'recovery is possible' to 'rebuilding is the only way' and that will take deca…

Counter opinion: Hazelwood Power Station was decommissioned under the watch of a Liberal government. The station was listed as the least carbon efficient power station in the OECD in a 2005 report by WWF Australia, making it one of the most polluting power stations in the world.[3] At 1.56 tonnes of CO2 for each megawatt hour of electricity, it was 50% more polluting than the average black coal power station in New S…

That's a good thing, but it doesn't really counter the parent's point. It's going to take a lot more than closing one power plant to turn around global warming.

Re: Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’

#67

Post by jacquesm »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #42
jaytaylor wrote: post #9

Why are those guys in the videos touching and tugging on the coral? Quite certain that's a no-no, and setting a terrible example for others. For reference, see "Coral Etiquette" [0]: Simply touching corals to see what they feel like can cause the death of an entire colony. Oils from your skin can disturb the delicate mucous membranes which protect the animals from disease. [0] https://sailhawaii.com/hawaii-wildlife/c…

The etiquette is different for you and me than on of the world's foremost, eminent researchers. He has a different level of understanding of what is harmful and not harmful.

Lead by example. By showing this others might imitate, even though the etiquette might be different awareness of that fact should not be assumed.

Re: Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’

#68

Post by h4b4n3r0 »

DavidPiper wrote: post #6

We're going on holiday to the Great Barrier Reef in a few months. I think it's quite likely to be the first and last time I see it in any state worth visiting for many years. Irrespective of how successful or unsuccessful the far-rights are in maintaining Australia's CO2 emission levels, I believe it's already too late - we've crossed from 'recovery is possible' to 'rebuilding is the only way' and that will take deca…

I’ve read it had died off in the past and recovered afterwards. This had happened 5 times in the past 30000 years, From that it would logically follow that recovery is possible, just not for these particular specimens. Additionally, it’s hard to tell if the current bleaching is as fatal as everyone here seems to assume. FWIW scientists seem to think the situation is grave, but not as grave and hopeless as the mass media portrays it: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/scientists-pronounce-great.... Of course the more balanced view doesn’t drive the clicks quite as well.

Re: Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’

#69

Post by listenallyall »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #56
ekianjo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know that some people claim we could but it is often because they do not look at every angle, especially economics, and scalability. Global scale endeavors tend to be complex and require long timelines.

There is a known straight-forward way to solve the economic problem. You impose a large carbon tax per ton of CO2 and use 100% of the money to subsidize power generation from non-fossil energy sources per KWh. Schedule regular increases in the rate over time, announced years in advance. There are only two real impediments to this happening. The first is lobbying from oil and coal companies (especially in the United S…

> lobbying from oil and coal companies (especially in the United States)

Ooooh, blame those evil, all-powerful, unstoppable, puppet-master "lobbyists." How about reality: China uses 4x the coal as the USA.

https://www.theatlas.com/charts/Nya6gW4s

Re: Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’

#70

Post by fungi »

mirimir wrote: post #45
cam_l wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, come on now. The previous prime minister Mal (and current deputy leader Josh) gave the great barrier reef $444m. They are doing their very best to save it. I mean sure, the charity they gave it to never asked for it, and have only 6 people working for them. And of course they were good friends of the party, ex-exxon, ex-origin (gas fracking), ex-jbp (most corrupt gov in aus history). No oversight, no investigatio…

It doesn't matter. There's no way that Australia could "save" the reef. At best, maybe they could bioengineer something that looked enough like a reef to keep tourists happy. Or maybe just replace it with plastic and stuff ;)

We could be global leaders committed to reducing green house gas emissions ASAP.

No we could not single handily turn the ship around, nobody ever said we could.

But we could be leaders and work hard for the greater good. Many many people have said we should do that.

Post reply on HN