
Since 2016, Half of All Coral in the Great Barrier Reef Has Died - esalazar
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/since-2016-half-the-coral-in-the-great-barrier-reef-has-perished/558302/?single_page=true
======
Qworg
Corals are fascinating creatures and incredible symbiots. Vulcan (where I
work) has been contributing to the advancement of science to save reefs. We've
funded Ruth Gates and Madeleine VanOppen's work in human-assisted evolution of
corals, among other projects.

I recommend everyone watch "Chasing Corals" on Netflix if they want a more
detailed explanation of problems and potential solutions. Trailer:
[https://youtu.be/Mmqqi_DnPEE](https://youtu.be/Mmqqi_DnPEE)

~~~
kraftman
Any suggestions for the best place to donate to have the most impact?

~~~
selectodude
I mean, the coral are dying because the ocean temperature has gotten too high.
Donate to yourself and stop using fossil fuels, that’s the only way out at
this point.

~~~
kraftman
First of all, it's clearly not the only way out, because the comment I replied
to shows at least another way worth exploring.

Second of all, me reducing my fossil fuel usage to 0 wouldn't magically drop
industrial fossil fuel usage to 0, so that's not even a solution to the
problem.

A new technology or enforced policy would have a much greater effect.

~~~
exergy
> A new technology

This attitude in the general public is our death knell. The only, and I do
mean ONLY, solution to not fucking up the environment beyond repair is the
concept of less.

Less SUVs, less air travel, less fast fashion, less computer monitors, less
phones replaced less quickly, less heating and cooling of our homes and more
getting acclimated to the climate, less fucking juiceros and interent
connected butt-plugs, less non-seasonal vegetables and meat, less eating of
beef and pork and chicken and more plants. Reduce.

I love to quote idlewords on this all the time, but we as a species can't even
handle male pattern baldness. To somehow expect that we can engineer our way
out of the complexities of nature with time to spare and without any impacts
on how we live life in the wes is a completely misguided belief. The
technological breakthrough that will be our saviour is not just around the
corner. Musk and Tesla aren't our saviours. 'Less' is.

~~~
belorn
According to a meta study on personal greenhouse impact the biggest "less"
thing a person can do is to not have too many children. To their data a single
child represent yearly the cost in CO2e as is saved by 20 people not driving,
40 less air trips, or about 100 people eating a purely vegetarian diet for the
same time period.
([http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541](http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541))

If we want less we need to understand the order of magnitude that the
different forms of less have.

~~~
exergy
Thanks for those numbers. I'm a card-carrying /r/childfree member.

------
aplummer
Ive been to Airlie / port Douglas every couple years for a decade, it’s
unbelievable how incredible the place was and how it just isn’t now.

First couple times was exactly like Finding Nemo, now it’s a barren wasteland
(and this is going to spots that are supposed to be better). Beaches in QLD
still best in the world if you’re visiting, give the diving a pass or manage
expectations unless you’re quite south

~~~
somishere
Barren wasteland is a bit far fetched, not sure which sites you are visiting
off Port/Airlie but most of the tourist operator sites are still in fairly
good shape, except maybe low Isles i.e. not pristine but they remain some of
the best in the world and worth a visit. Lots of endemic species/corals etc.
Which isn't to say there isn't a problem, the reports are correct, the signs
are there, and repeats of the bleaching events of the past few years will
definitely lead to the wasteland you describe (as seen in areas of the gbr and
many of the other Pacific and american reefs). The original numbers were 90%
of the reef had died, what this actually meant was that of all the sites
surveyed 90% showed some sign of bleaching - which basically means stress due
to heat exposure. The death bit comes later when the coral doesn't have time
to rejuvinate.

~~~
aplummer
And that’s the thing maybe it’s great comparative to the rest of the world,
but not itself. Was with tour operators in 2015 so youd think it was the good
spots, going again in a month so hopefully looking ok.

------
matte_black
I always wanted to see this Great Barrier Reef since I was a small child, now
it looks like there might not be any of it left by the time I get there. Is it
even worth it at this point, or should I just look at pictures and imagine
what once was?

~~~
matuszeg
you should go. It's not all gone yet.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
Yes, fly there, pump more CO2 into the air thereby increasing ocean
acidification to escalate coral bleaching.

~~~
belorn
I don't know. If there is no money that get infused into the local environment
around the corals then less people will work to fix it. It is also rather well
established that conservation must focus on awareness or things don't usually
improve by them self. Comparing the drawback to the benefits of tourism, I
suspect the benefits win.

~~~
vaughanb
>If there is no money that get infused into the local environment around the
corals then less people will work to fix it.

The ocean has warmed to the point where to coral cannot survive. The reef is
H-U-G-E (1,400 miles long according to the article). If there was a technology
capable of reducing the ocean temperature around the reef, the waste heat the
technology would create would cause more problems elsewhere.

The reef is an indication that the global warming problem has become to big
for human technology to fix.

------
peterbraden
Is there any way to farm coral in more temperate waters? Reef fish are very
valuable so it could even be commercially viable.

~~~
pvaldes
Is a extremely complex ecosystem. Yes, you can grow coral in captivity. Some
species are much more difficult to keep alive than other, but can be done. Is
done since years in aquariums. The problem is that this not the same as
cloning a entire ecosystem with a net of 10.000 species living together.

You can't do it in the sea otherwise, because there is not a lot of accurate
and still free areas. Coral needs a lot of light. Must be shallow. Pirate and
lawful fishing, commercial sea routes, tourism (coral reef attracts big
predators like sharks), and a net of vested interests will block it.

And you'll need to wait 3000 years to have a coral reef at '3000 years level',
of course. Corals are terribly slow and fight with their neighbors all the
time. Such project would be extremely expensive.

~~~
somishere
There's already projects doing this. Both on the GBR and in places like
Florida in the USA. The coral being grown is mainly staghorn due to its rapid
growth cycles with the idea that it can help replenish high value sites only,
i.e. not the whole reef. These kind of measures are seen as being part of a
spectrum of solutions. Check out the Reef Restoration Project:
[https://citizensgbr.org/c/coral-nurseries](https://citizensgbr.org/c/coral-
nurseries)

~~~
pvaldes
A staghorn-only reef is "equivalent" to a monoculture forest. Staghorn is the
"Eucalyptus" of corals. Much faster than most species. Will overgrowth and
overshadow more delicate species that rely in potent poisons and good niches
to survive and grow much slower.

Staghorn could make a good skeleton of a reef in, dunno, maybe 50 or 100 years
and would attract a wonderful biodiversity if left alone; but is not enough in
reef terms. we are talking of the cream of the cream. One of the finest works
of this planet. The staghorn ecosystem is just a baby and a lot of species
would be sorely missing.

------
somishere
People interested in joining a movement that engages with climate change and
the future of the reef (through circular economy principles) should check out
Citizens: [https://citizensgbr.org/s/39cB](https://citizensgbr.org/s/39cB)

------
lama_me
what have we done to this world :(

~~~
taberiand
We've collectively chosen short term excess over long term sustainability.

I used to have hope; now it seems past the point of no return. I figure we
should just try to enjoy it all while we still can, like everybody else.

~~~
dmichulke
> We've collectively chosen short term excess over long term sustainability

No. Damage to the environment is done because it's cheap. And why is it cheap?
Because the owner of the thing (the state, the town, the "community") doesn't
care. Now if there were a real market driven cost (throwing away a plastic bag
or a TV would actually cost something), you would reconsider.

Next in line is consumption: How about the houses built everywhere on the
planet with low interest rates that will never be inhabited because there are
not enough people nearby to inhabit it.

Next is (as an example) military production in the US (>= 10x the military
budget of Germany or Russia), using up money to destroy even more things of
value.

There are a million reasons and most of them lead down to

\- low interest rates (incentivizing producers to produce things people
wouldn't want, disincentivizing consumers to save)

\- a lack of democracy and/or accountability of the people in charge (those
wars weren't exactly a consequence of people protesting on the streets)

\- "public ownership" which basically translates to "no one gives a f __*
because it 's not theirs'" \- see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)

I suppose the last point is probably the least orthodox, so here are two
sources that discuss the issue:

Audio:
[https://mises.org/ko/library/5-environmentalism](https://mises.org/ko/library/5-environmentalism)

PDF: [https://mises-
media.s3.amazonaws.com/Environmentalism%20and%...](https://mises-
media.s3.amazonaws.com/Environmentalism%20and%20Economic%20Freedom%20The%20Case%20for%20Private%20Property%20Rights_2.pdf?file=1&type=document)

------
ollybee
I reccomend this BBC radio program for an up to date discussion on the state
of the Great Barrier Reef
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09snj90](http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09snj90)

------
throwaway84742
Australia says it’s not dying tho, and “is healthy”:
[https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2016-12-great-
bar...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2016-12-great-barrier-reef-
dying-australia.amp)

~~~
akvadrako
Hey, an AMP link in the wild.

~~~
throwaway84742
I’m a simple man: google gives me links, I copy them over.

------
hoodoof
x

~~~
cup-of-tea
It turns out cutting is one of the hardest things for people to do. Just look
at how many obese people there are who cannot reduce their intake despite the
immediate inconvenience and discomfort of being fat, not to mention the risk
to their health. If so many can't even do it for themselves or their children,
there's not much hope of them doing it for others.

It also leaves me utterly convinced that nobody really believes in god or an
afterlife. People constantly demonstrate that the only thing that matters to
them is that today is at least as convenient as yesterday.

No change will ever happen from the bottom up. And while our "leaders"
continue to be people with already massively inflated lifestyles, nothing will
happen from the top down either.

~~~
gepi79
IMO main the problems are poverty and old traditions (e.g. animal products)
and general confusion of priorities.

The bad media sells the latest news or problem as the most important news or
problem.

People elect or at least accept the politicians. People pay for or at least
accept the bad greedy business practices of small and big companies in the
name of holy competition and individual struggle for life.

Too many people have faith that god (notably in the USA) and the traditional
conservative political parties do what should be done.

There is a lack of motivation and desire for life changing real science and
technology as national priority to end poverty, to bring wealth to all, to
prolong life (anti-aging) and to protect nature including coral reefs. Science
and technology would allow people to eat all they want and do no sports and
still look like models and be perfectly healthy.

Cutting and austerity is not a strategy and not a replacement of urgent
progress of science and technology.

Cutting and austerity is an unfortunate tactic because of lack of science and
technology.

~~~
cup-of-tea
But you're dreaming of technology that may never happen. There is no way at
the moment that we can sustain our current lifestyles without fossil fuels. In
addition, if we remain unsustainable then we'll just grow to fill the next
level unsustainability if a new technology did come along.

~~~
gepi79
> But you're dreaming of technology that may never happen.

IMO automation, genetic engineering, implants and replacement of natural body
parts by artificial body parts will start social, economic and medical
revolutions within the next decade.

One of the worst misbeliefs is that the end of poverty (at least world hunger)
and the end of large-scale wars (e.g. Middle East) is just futurist idiocy
while it is actually achievable within a year with existing technology. But
political priorities prevent it.

Anyway, my point is that effort is required to advance science and technology.
To call it a dream and to do nothing to realize it is the wrong way. It only
wastes time because the efforts and investments must be made anyway (by future
generations).

> There is no way at the moment that we can sustain our current lifestyles
> without fossil fuels.

True. But again: There was and is not enough effort to create the
technological alternatives. Besides, a lot of energy (and burned forests)
could be saved by simply not eating animal products any more.

> In addition, if we remain unsustainable then we'll just grow to fill the
> next level unsustainability if a new technology did come along.

Humanity is always at the frontier of sustainability or possibilities for one
reason or another. Science and technology lead to creation of resources (e.g.
use of steel, use of fossil fuel, use of Uranium, use of solar power) and more
efficient use of resources like e.g. man power (e.g. by better program
languages, better programs, better computers, better cars, better houses) and
less religious societies and less wars and lower birth rates.

~~~
ripsawridge
"Science and technology lead to creation of resources..."

No, they lead to finding and digging up of resources.

"and more efficient use of resources"

Efficiency doesn't make anything better, it just increases the amount of the
resources that we create--oops---use.

"and less religious societies and less wars"

Okay, it's clear you have a story in your mind that ultimately leads to
jetpacks among the stars.

"and lower birth rates." This doesn't mean much. We went from 3.5 to 7.5
billion in 45 years. We had plenty of science and technology during that time,
all doing their thing with the uranium and the fossil fuel and the steel.

------
OzClimate
This is sad news.

Will this encourage Australians to contribute their fair share in the fight
against climate change?

CO2 emissions (tons) per capita in 2016

Canada: 18.62 Australia: 17.22 USA: 15.56 Japan: 9.68 Netherlands: 9.61
Germany: 9.47 New Zealand: 7.14 UK: 5.59 Sweden: 4.54

[http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2andGHG1970-2...](http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2andGHG1970-2016&dst=CO2pc&sort=des9)

------
akvadrako
This article is strikes a rather alarmist tone which isn't warranted. This
reef has been around in some form for 2M years and has experienced average
global temperatures about 10 degrees colder and warmer. Reefs in the
Arabian/Persian Gulf survive seawater temperatures about 8 degrees warmer than
this one.

If the heat is killing them, they just need time to adapt.

 _" I think we are now getting to this idea that actually, in some cases,
these mechanism can arise very quickly, within a few years."_
([https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hot-water-
corals-...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hot-water-corals-in-
the-persian-gulf-could-help-save-the-world-s-reefs/))

