31–40 of 93 posts
This is apparently only for one particular kind of fast-growing coral, which means coral diversity is lower and that makes the reef more vulnerable to damage and less supportive of the wider ecosystem: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-04/great-barrier-reef-re...
When I was last in Australia, back in 2019, I spent a bit of time out at the reef with local-run dive boat. On the way out, I was chatting with the crew, and they were talking about how exciting it was that some of the conservation efforts were really paying off finally. They were saying that some of the spots they visit were finally visibly improving over time rather than bleaching over time basically for the first…
[Edit] Sorry, not meaning to be overly negative. Happy to provide further detail of the efforts in place if you let me know where you were!
I felt this article left some things unexplained, like what is a mass bleaching event? The wikipedia article on Coral Bleaching is excellent. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching Also, cool note on the economics: “Experts estimate that coral reef services are worth up to $1.2 million per hectare which translates to an average of $172 billion per year.” Someone do the math, what is the value of this comebac…
> Someone do the math, what is the value of this comeback in USD? About USD 120 billion. I’m always sceptical of these claims in the media that economists say that something “could be worth up to $X billion/year” or “X costs the economy $Y billion/year”. They are based on assumptions, whose veracity may be unknowable-if not just totally unrealistic; and the error bars on such estimates must be huge, but many journali…
The point of these claims is to try to get people to understand that climate destruction events have meaning, and if negative economic effects are the most straightforward way to explain that, then so be it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> While I understand per capita for fairness It's not even really fair. Do those measures account for the emissions of everything we purchase from overseas? China is an outsourced factory for the world. It's hard to point the finger at China's emissions when a large chunk of the developed world's goods are produced by them. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capit...
I wonder. Is it possible to extrapolate emissions based on imports in a meaningful way? Say we import 10,000,000 beanie babies and we know each one requires an average of 100kg of CO2 to manufacture and export. Based on that data could we determine more accurate per capita emissions? Not sure if this would be entirely pointless to approximate or makes no sense to begin with. You could categorize it as domestic emissi…
https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2
From a cursory googling it seems that 'consumption-based accounting' is something that is being heavily researched, and we need to start distinguishing it from the simplistic and flawed 'production-based accounting' in the press, and in political discourse.
There are many aspects to reef conservation. Looking at one aspect in total isolation and claiming anything at all about it with respect the health of the reef is just idiotic.
There would have been very, very little reef tourism over the past two years. Any effect from that?
There will be others as well.
And right there is the risk of using "The reef is nearly dead because global warming" scare campaign lies to try and motivate people to do the right thing. It backfires and ends up encouraging people not to care because they've heard this chicken little stuff before.
Lying for the greater good and those who do it just need to be treated with something beyond contempt.
Context: I'm pretty worried about global warming and have been hearing the reef is nearly dead because global warming for decades now. I've become totally cynical about the reef being used as evidence of global warming for good reason - and it may well be under very deep threat because of global warming. Just stop with the damn lies.
This is apparently only for one particular kind of fast-growing coral, which means coral diversity is lower and that makes the reef more vulnerable to damage and less supportive of the wider ecosystem: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-04/great-barrier-reef-re...
Plus a bit of evolution for that coral, I'm guessing. Nature will eventually adapt to whatever we throw at it, but I'm not so sure if it will be fast enough for humans to survive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> While I understand per capita for fairness It's not even really fair. Do those measures account for the emissions of everything we purchase from overseas? China is an outsourced factory for the world. It's hard to point the finger at China's emissions when a large chunk of the developed world's goods are produced by them. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capit...
I wonder. Is it possible to extrapolate emissions based on imports in a meaningful way? Say we import 10,000,000 beanie babies and we know each one requires an average of 100kg of CO2 to manufacture and export. Based on that data could we determine more accurate per capita emissions? Not sure if this would be entirely pointless to approximate or makes no sense to begin with. You could categorize it as domestic emissi…
Could start with the existing system of international cargo categories and order of magnitude production emissions and packing assumptions based upon standard containers (refrigerated or 40" TEU or whatever). Then add trucking, storage and distribution metrics.
This is apparently only for one particular kind of fast-growing coral, which means coral diversity is lower and that makes the reef more vulnerable to damage and less supportive of the wider ecosystem: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-04/great-barrier-reef-re...
I wonder if, like forests, corals tend to colonize an area first with fast growing species, which then get slowly replaced by longer lived species (forest succession). I understand that it takes a while for a forest to go from clean-field to a fully matured forest though.
This is apparently only for one particular kind of fast-growing coral, which means coral diversity is lower and that makes the reef more vulnerable to damage and less supportive of the wider ecosystem: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-04/great-barrier-reef-re...
> This is apparently only for one particular kind of fast-growing coral Plus a bit of evolution for that coral, I'm guessing. Nature will eventually adapt to whatever we throw at it, but I'm not so sure if it will be fast enough for humans to survive.