Live data from Hacker News

Obituary: Great Barrier Reef

outsideonline.com

11–20 of 54 posts

Re: Obituary: Great Barrier Reef

#11
[The Australian Government] shortly after approving the largest coal mine in its history, successfully pressured the United Nations to remove a chapter about the reef from a report on the impact of climate change on World Heritage sites. Australia’s Department of the Environment explained the move by saying, “experience had shown that negative comments about the status of World Heritage-listed properties impacted on tourism.” In other words, if you tell people the reef is dying, they might stop coming.

It's the other way around. If you tell people the reef is dying, they go en masse, which contributes to the bleaching greatly.

Re: Obituary: Great Barrier Reef

#13

This article commits a grave rhetorical error. The reef is not all dead (about 25% irreversibly I believe) but will be soon unless we stop most emissions. They don't make this clear at all. This leads readers to ignore and shy away from the issue further because we think it's too late. Humans like to pretend bad news isn't there and will jump on any excuse for cognitive avoidance.

Yes its quite irresponsible for an article like this to be published. Yes, the reef and life as we know it is under a huge thread from global warming and acidification etc, but this article is just misleading.

Re: Obituary: Great Barrier Reef

#14
Ignoring the errors in the article, what can we do? Due to the selfishness and shortsightedness of our race, I think the only way we are not totally screwed is if we (quickly) invent some tech that cleans up the atmosphere and oceans - not an easy task!

Re: Obituary: Great Barrier Reef

#15
post #14

Ignoring the errors in the article, what can we do? Due to the selfishness and shortsightedness of our race, I think the only way we are not totally screwed is if we (quickly) invent some tech that cleans up the atmosphere and oceans - not an easy task!

Or find a way to colonize new planets. Your solution sounds more far-fetched to me, as sad as that is.

Re: Obituary: Great Barrier Reef

#16
post #14

Ignoring the errors in the article, what can we do? Due to the selfishness and shortsightedness of our race, I think the only way we are not totally screwed is if we (quickly) invent some tech that cleans up the atmosphere and oceans - not an easy task!

I don't like the "our race" generalisation, not when there's so many people committed to reducing carbon emissions and what-have-you; billions, if not trillions are being invested in creating clean alternatives, projects get both community and government support everywhere, countries are banning coal power plants and promoting and subsidising solar, wind and water power, big scientific teams are dedicating their lives on making nuclear fusion feasible, consumers and companies are encouraged to use electric cars or penalised for using fossil fuel cars, etc etc etc.

There's also still some establishments that keep the economy and power grid going, but they'll be gone within 50 years if this keeps up. There's also rising economies that don't give a fuck because they're trying to catch up with the rest of the world.

So yeah, I guess I take offense to blaming everyone. I see this "baw humanity sucks" far too much - that's both insulting to yourself (do you suck? are you causing climate change?) and to those that try and make things better for all of us.

Re: Obituary: Great Barrier Reef

#17
post #10

This article commits a grave rhetorical error. The reef is not all dead (about 25% irreversibly I believe) but will be soon unless we stop most emissions. They don't make this clear at all. This leads readers to ignore and shy away from the issue further because we think it's too late. Humans like to pretend bad news isn't there and will jump on any excuse for cognitive avoidance.

The ocean reacts to temperature changes in the order of decades. The effect of things we do today will only really be apparent in approx. 20 years. Even if by some stroke of universal good sense we stop global warming today (this is not going to happen, of course), this only gives us hope for whatever's left unbleached at that time.

That's a good point, but nonetheless the article doesn't provide any figures or estimates. So other readers can point to the continued life on the reef and say 'lies', and bury their heads in the sand too. Even if it will all be dead in 20 years, or 40. The article talks of 450[units] carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We're at 400 now. No data on when we get there nor graphs or estimates of when the rest dies off.

Re: Obituary: Great Barrier Reef

#18
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that we caused the death, it didn't come naturally.

What is the difference?

So you're ok with the thought of someone shooting and killing you tomorrow? You're going to die anyway, what's the difference?

Re: Obituary: Great Barrier Reef

#19
post #13

This article commits a grave rhetorical error. The reef is not all dead (about 25% irreversibly I believe) but will be soon unless we stop most emissions. They don't make this clear at all. This leads readers to ignore and shy away from the issue further because we think it's too late. Humans like to pretend bad news isn't there and will jump on any excuse for cognitive avoidance.

Yes its quite irresponsible for an article like this to be published. Yes, the reef and life as we know it is under a huge thread from global warming and acidification etc, but this article is just misleading.

To quote the article...

"With no force on earth capable of preventing the oceans from continuing to warm and acidify for centuries to come, Veron had no illusions about the future."

I feel you're missing the point of the article. The reality is that the reef effectively has a terminal illness and there's little anyone can do now.

Stage 5. Acceptance.

Re: Obituary: Great Barrier Reef

#20
post #14

Ignoring the errors in the article, what can we do? Due to the selfishness and shortsightedness of our race, I think the only way we are not totally screwed is if we (quickly) invent some tech that cleans up the atmosphere and oceans - not an easy task!

I don't like the "our race" generalisation, not when there's so many people committed to reducing carbon emissions and what-have-you; billions, if not trillions are being invested in creating clean alternatives, projects get both community and government support everywhere, countries are banning coal power plants and promoting and subsidising solar, wind and water power, big scientific teams are dedicating their live…

> I don't like the "our race" generalisation, , not when there's so many people committed to reducing carbon emissions and what-have-you...

From my perspective, on the whole, there are much less people who are providing even part of a solution than there are who are contributing to the problem. The race as a whole has an extremely negative impact on the planet and its co-habiting species. I am extremely indebted to those who have devoted their lives to finding solutions to this problem, but they seem to me very much the minority.

> There's also still some establishments that keep the economy and power grid going, but they'll be gone within 50 years if this keeps up. There's also rising economies that don't give a fuck because they're trying to catch up with the rest of the world.

Yup. Most of the major governments around the world and the largest corporations. Many of the rising economies are in this positing due to the selfishness of the historical actions of the leaders of countries with strong economies.

> So yeah, I guess I take offense to blaming everyone. I see this "baw humanity sucks" far too much..

Well, it think it is the majorities fault at the moment. Yes its not a productive viewpoint, but an accurate one.

> that's both insulting to yourself (do you suck? are you causing climate change?) and to those that try and make things better for all of us.

"suck" is your wording, but yes I am selfish in terms of my environmental impact, much like the average person in any developed nation. I engage in activities which have negative effects on the environment without balancing these effects. From the thousands of people I have met in my life, I cant think of one who has a positive net effect on the environment - hence, people are stupid, including me :p

Post reply on HN