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.
Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’
71–80 of 127 posts
Re: Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Oops, sorry. I read two comments, got distracted, then wrote a response to a comment that didn't real exist. Should probably get some more sleep.
Re: Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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, and even those that are delicate or dangerous in some way can be safely touched by experts or researchers.
Maybe coral is similar to this, maybe not, but by analogy I don't see a problem in offering the public a more conservative version of safe guidance.
Re: Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
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.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/sc...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-climatechange-carbo...
Re: Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’
#75Why 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…
Just watched a PBS Nova special on rising CO2 levels and the impact on corral (requires lower acidity). Scientists in that episode removed coral for experiments. They removed a bit in the really high acidity areas. Interesting special, although I think it was from 2013 "lethal seas".
Couldn’t dump a truckload of baking soda?
Re: Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’
#76Earlier 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.
One thing that I do know is that wind and solar have more installations and lower cost than every projection. So they're projected to not be enough... eh?
Indeed. It's awesome that they are beating projections, but even so, the rate is far below what is needed to decarbonize the energy sector by mid-century which is what we need to keep warming below 2C.
Re: Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is the branch of politics that really likes those coal mining jobs and doesn't want policies that threaten the use of coal.
That branch isn't the far right though. That branch is the people who represent electorates with lots of coal mines (ironically likely to be voting Labor, who are perceived as left aligned). The perception that anyone likes coal because there is a massive pro-coal conspiracy is missing out on the Occam's Razor idea that there is broad electoral support for cheap power that the right wing, far right or otherwise, are…
Our far-right just wants to kick out foreigners and ignore refugees and doesn't give a shit about anything else
Re: Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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
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 coal consumer in the world by far. And yet his suggestion is to cut off the USA, not China, from all global trading.
Re: Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’
#79We'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…
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) and they could deploy top-down without having to pay anyone to shut down the pre-existing plants (since they already owned them).
In a free market setting, nuclear is not going to be cheap.
Re: Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’
#80Is it just me, or does it seem like there is big business to be had in climate change and climate denial?
A lot of money appears to be flowing into these two camps.