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

81–90 of 127 posts

Re: Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’

#81

Post by roenxi »

cschwarm wrote: post #79
roenxi wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The far right have been advocating or at least partial to Nuclear power since as far back as the late Howard government in '07. Cory Bernardi has a bill before the Senate right now titled "Nuclear Fuel Cycle (Facilitation) Bill 2017". France with nuclear remains the first world country with the cheapest, cleanest, and probably safest power. There is no branch of politics committed to "maintaining Australia's CO2 emis…

> France with nuclear remains the first world country with the cheapest, … France had a nationalized electricity grid when it build its nuclear fleet. So, the demand side was nationalized (EDF), and they made sure to nationalize the supply side of nuclear as well (Areva). This was probably the main reason why Nuclear is cheap in France: They standardized the design on the supply side (only two designs in 30 years) an…

> In a free market setting, nuclear is not going to be cheap.

Costs haven't stopped Germany trying to jump ship to solar, and that hasn't turned out half as well as France from an economic or environmental perspective. Australia is one close election away from the Greens pushing something similar on to us.

Australia is composed of unusually large, flat, desolate geotechnically stable areas. We produce large amounts of raw materials, including steel, and have some of the most extensive uranium deposits currently known about. We have a highly educated population.

The next time we have one of those big once-in-a-generation crashes and the government is looking for a great big expensive infrastructure project to soak up some excess capacity, it would be absolutely fantastic if a nuclear plant was at least on the cards.

Currently, it is banned. It is banned for no good reason. And banning something because the peanut gallery thinks it might be expensive is not a good move. And, and this is my central point in this thread, none of this is because the far right has an irrational love of coal.

Re: Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’

#82

Post by mirimir »

fungi wrote: post #70
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 ;)

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.

Those are admirable sentiments. And it's great to be optimistic. But if the models are at all relevant, it's probably already too late.

Re: Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’

#83

Post by bufferoverflow »

jarmitage wrote: post #71

I met a coral researcher last year who said we just have to get over the fact that it’s all over for coral as it exists now, and try to learn as much as possible from it so we can re-design it later ourselves. They were very calm about this suggesting they were way past the grieving period. It was quite shocking to me.

I'm pretty sure we can create artificial coral reefs in a controlled environment. They won't go extinct.

Re: Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’

#84

Post by andai »

h4b4n3r0 wrote: post #68
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 me…

I've been wondering about this. If they're this sensitive to change, then this can't be the first time massive bleaching has happened.

> Terry Hughes, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, said that he was “not impressed by the [article’s] message that we should give up on the [Great Barrier Reef], or that it is already dead.”

Re: Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’

#85

Post by wk_end »

listenallyall wrote: post #78
wk_end wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China’s well more than 4x the population of the US. Those stats, from 2012, are quite outdated, too; while still the largest users of coal (but again, largest country) they’re rapidly and aggressively investing in green energy and cutting back on coal use. The Chinese produce much less carbon per capita than Americans do [1] and recently hit their carbon reduction targets well ahead of schedule [2]. [1] https://www.u…

Great for China! The point is that the OP used the all-too-common, purposefully-vague "lobbyist" argument into his rant, as if a profession (rather than the oil and gas companies for whom they work) is responsible for all the global warming problems in the world. Further, the OP obscures the simple fact that even with large shifts in power production over the next few decades, China is, and will remain, the largest c…

The oil and gas companies employ lobbyists as a means to effect policy changes (or inaction), so...well, despite your snippy attempt to clarify I'm still not sure exactly what your point here is? Yes, the oil and gas companies are the bad guys, I doubt anyone (myself or OP included) would disagree; the problem is that the tens of millions of dollars each year they spend lobbying is apparently a very effective weapon (that they probably shouldn't have) to prevent collective climate action.

And yes, the proper global action is to punish climate hogs like the US. And to be clear, once again, relatively speaking China's not a climate hog: it's inane to demand a country of 1.5 billion reduce its total coal usage to less than that of a country less than a quarter of the size before demanding the smaller country to do anything at all, and even more inane to try to punish countries who are aggressively working towards a solution (Europe, China), instead of those actively fighting against one (the US).

From some kind of top-down perspective, where you have total control over all aspects of policy in all countries, then yes, I suppose the focus should be on China. But that's not the way the global economy works; it's a game where no one country will be gladly willing to sacrifice its competitive advantage, and that's why per capita figures matter more than raw numbers.

Re: Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’

#86

Post by andai »

notafraudster wrote: post #73
jacquesm wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't know anything about coral, but I do know something about plants. Many botanical gardens have similar disclaimers about touching plants, but invariably what they actually mean is "Touching is fine, but some dumbass is going to take it too far and kill something, so we'll say no touching just to ensure it doesn't get to that point". Of course the vast majority of plants are safe to touch for you and the plant,…

Corals are sensitive.

From above comment:

> Simply touching corals to see what they feel like can cause death of an entire colony. Oils from your skin can disturb the delicate mucous membranes which protect the animals from disease.

Re: Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’

#87

Post by adrianN »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #83
jarmitage wrote: post #71

I met a coral researcher last year who said we just have to get over the fact that it’s all over for coral as it exists now, and try to learn as much as possible from it so we can re-design it later ourselves. They were very calm about this suggesting they were way past the grieving period. It was quite shocking to me.

I'm pretty sure we can create artificial coral reefs in a controlled environment. They won't go extinct.

I'm pretty sure there are still many species in the reefs that we haven't discovered yet.

Re: Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’

#88

Post by 77ko »

cam_l wrote: post #40
jimmcslim wrote: post #3

Well, we’ve just had another “coup” here in Australia... our 6th Prime Minister in 10 years, so yeah there’s definitely a steady hand on the tiller of Australian climate policy...

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…

Hey, its not that bad, as you know only carefully vetted and patted down people are allowed into the exclusive lounge where the charity was born:

> the foundation “started with a small group of businessmen chatting at the airport while waiting for their flight, wanting to do something to help the Great Barrier Reef

Re: Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’

#89

Post by intended »

jarmitage wrote: post #71

I met a coral researcher last year who said we just have to get over the fact that it’s all over for coral as it exists now, and try to learn as much as possible from it so we can re-design it later ourselves. They were very calm about this suggesting they were way past the grieving period. It was quite shocking to me.

There’s a gq/esquire or rolling stone article on depression in the climate sciences.

I remember a researcher who described leaving America and heading to a Nordic country to raise his children- because he said its hopeless and this is the only shot his child would have. He gave up on the subject.

There’s other parts which describe the number of students who leave the field because of how bleak the data is.

If there’s a canary in the coal mine, it’s long since dead and The canary handlers are resigned to inevitable collapse. (And mine owners seem to be fleeing to New Zealand)

Re: Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’

#90

Post by intended »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #83
jarmitage wrote: post #71

I met a coral researcher last year who said we just have to get over the fact that it’s all over for coral as it exists now, and try to learn as much as possible from it so we can re-design it later ourselves. They were very calm about this suggesting they were way past the grieving period. It was quite shocking to me.

I'm pretty sure we can create artificial coral reefs in a controlled environment. They won't go extinct.

There are already attempts to do that.

There are a few corals which manage this.

But their not going extinct is not the problem.

The environment is like a jumbled stack of stilts holding up a house.

There’s enough stilts that if a few of them get eaten by termites, there’s enough redundancy to keep the house upright. The system is interconnected and deep enough to end up fine.

What’re happening is that many supports are dead, others are rotten and still more are weakening.

This means that eventually, one support will collapse and set off a contagion. A collapse chain, similar to what happened during the 2008 crisis.

Reef collapse means a whole chunk of ecosystem dies - and it’s never coming back in multiple human life times. This impacts every creature that depends on that ecosystem.

Post reply on HN