
Climate change causes Australia to downgrade Great Barrier Reef′s outlook - lelf
https://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-causes-australia-to-downgrade-great-barrier-reefs-outlook/a-50224028
======
spectramax
Not many people would oppose the opinion that we should protect the earth and
yet human society has grown so complex, driven by market forces and global
economy, that if governments do not take action, private enterprise sure as
hell wouldn't. Selfishness of individuals triumph over long term global cause.

I am sad. Humans have achieved so much and yet there are large areas of
neglect, abuse, misuse and misconduct. I have a strong feeling that if we go
to mars, people will still have issues. Tribal instincts will kick in and
we'll fight over what color flag to put it up there.

Take over of humans by AGI sounds like a better future.

~~~
arcticbull
IMO Mars is going to be an absolute bloodbath, in the same way every colony on
Earth was a bloodbath. We should probably do it all the same. We've not yet
even sorted out the colonies we have here (HK, for instance, I would consider
a Chinese colony as it was a British colony until 1997).

~~~
JimmyAustin
Every colony on earth was blood bath because someone was already there, and
didn't appreciate their land being taken by force.

Mars has no indigenous population, and seems to be plenty big enough for
everyone.

~~~
vkou
Mars only doesn't have anyone there the first time.

What makes you think the interaction between the first and second wave of
colonists wouldn't run into all the same problems that we had on Earth?

(Not that I believe there will be _any_ waves of colonists. It'd be easier,
and have a better social ROI to make the ocean floor, Antarctica, Mount
Everest, or San Francisco hospitable to human life, than it would be to settle
Mars.)

~~~
nostrademons
I think the motive for Mars colonization is more robustness than efficiency.
It'd definitely be _easier_ to colonize the ocean than Mars. However, many
planetary extinction events that would spare Mars would still wipe out
settlements on the ocean floor, Antarctica, Mount Everest, or San Francisco.
Asteroid impact, worldwide plague, nuclear winter, global warming, Chinese
dictatorship, Terminator 3, Waterworld, The Core, Interstellar, they would all
wipe out Earth while leaving Mars untouched. Even scenarios like Independence
Day, Battleship, and Transformers would give a Mars colony time to react while
the aliens were busy wiping out Earth, which might mean the difference between
human survival and extinction.

~~~
vkou
If you think that a Chinese dictatorship (or any of the other things you
listed) will wipe out the Earth and leave Mars untouched, I would recommend
reading fewer comic books. (And I'm a bit surprised that a zombie outbreak
wasn't one of the listed threats.)

------
emmelaich
This news is about a month old now.

This is a better write-up ...

[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-30/great-barrier-reef-
re...](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-30/great-barrier-reef-report-long-
term-outlook-downgraded-very-poor/11464294)

The actual report is here

[http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-work/outlook-
report-2019](http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-work/outlook-report-2019)

------
jdkee
Australia's coal friendly policies > the preservation of a unique ecosystem.

It is as if the Australian government prioritizes the economic value of carbon
emissions over the externalities of the globe. Who would of thunk?

~~~
docdeek
The reality is, though, that if Australia stopped selling and using coal
tomorrow the damage expected to impact the HBR would happen anyway. It's a
global problem and requires more than local action by a high per-capita but
low gross-total carbon emitter.

~~~
phs318u
Also reality though, if Australia stopped selling and using coal tomorrow, it
would be called global leadership.

Hahahaha. As if.

DISCLAIMER: Australian citizen.

~~~
roenxi
34% of our exports come from fuels & oils [0] and 50% of our energy [1]. We
contribute essentially nothing to the problem of carbon emissions [2]. We
would, at best, be showing leadership by torching our own economy which is
unlikely to sway the Indians, Chinese, Americans , etc into following our
lead.

We would be doing much better applying our leadership to making billions in
exports and showing leadership in renewables & nuclear research. The only
contribution Australia can make is finding a way to show that coal isn't the
most profitable option. Mandating uneconomic experiments is not the path to
doing that.

If the reef goes because of climate change, Australia was never in a position
to stop that by reducing our emissions.

[0] [http://www.worldstopexports.com/australias-
top-10-exports/](http://www.worldstopexports.com/australias-top-10-exports/)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Australi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Australia)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita#/media/File:2018_AQAL_Group_variwide_chart_%22Worldwide_Co2_emissions%22.jpg)

~~~
bigbluedots
> We contribute essentially nothing to the problem of carbon emissions

By exporting a huge amount of coal to other countries, who then burn it. Do
you think that has zero impact?

~~~
imtringued
I think the argument is that you cannot force a foreign country to burn less
fossil fuels. If you stop selling then someone else takes your place because
the demand is still there. The problem needs to be solved at the root: reduce
demand for fossil fuels.

------
adrianN
The reefs are already lost unless you believe we manage to become carbon
neutral before 2040 or so. At 2° almost all coral will die. Already at 1.5°
the majority will die.

------
MikeOfAu
For balance, I would point out that there is an alternative point of view:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7j75L38PlI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7j75L38PlI)

I find it hard to know what to believe. 5 years ago it seemed clear everything
was going to hell in a handbasket, now I'm more sceptical, a lot more
sceptical, but ultimately unsure.

I'd feel a lot less sceptical if those disagreeing weren't immediately crushed
and silenced. If they are so clearly wrong, surely it is easy to show that?
Moral emergencies cause humans to behave very badly. Lynch mobs and all that,
or Cursaders up to their knees in blood on behalf of their God.

~~~
garmaine
I bookmarked your link, and will watch it later.

Since you seem open to thinking critically about the effects of both climate
change and green policy, I’d recommend Robert Zubrin’s “Merchants of Despair,”
if you haven’t read it already. It follows the trajectory of the malthusian
anti-human movement over the last 225 years, culminating in today’s problem of
climate change alarmism.

Global climate Change is a real thing, albeit with consequences and timelines
that are wildly exaggerated by the alarmist movement, and simply throwing
insane amounts of money at renewables is not going to solve the problems that
arise.

PS: your post (and mine) are going to end up hidden from view in no time at
all. Unfortunately even in HN there is a hive mind that censors discussion of
trade offs :(

~~~
MikeOfAu
The thread hanging off this post (which had nothing to do with downvoting) has
been "disappeared". That leaves a bad taste. It seems unnecessary.

~~~
garmaine
It's not how you create an atmosphere conductive to discussion. The downvote-
related addendum (which I would edit out if I could, but the edit window has
passed) was thrown in due to frustration. Writing a post skeptical of climate
alarmism on any social media feels like pissing in the wind. On HN or Reddit
it gets instantly down-voted into oblivion without any meaningful responses.
On Facebook or Twitter it just gets you categorized weird and future posts
shown to only fringe denier cranks. I knew you would see it, but probably few
others, so why bother? And sure enough, the thread got collapsed by a
moderator. We should reward posts that think critically and bring up facts you
might not be aware of, even if they're arguing against something you thought
was settled. Doing otherwise is not healthy for the utility of the platform :\

