
Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’ - Tomte
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2018/08/world/great-barrier-reef/
======
jarmitage
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.

~~~
bufferoverflow
I'm pretty sure we can create artificial coral reefs in a controlled
environment. They won't go extinct.

~~~
intended
There are already attempts to do that.

There are a few corals which manage this.

But their not going extinct is not the problem.

The environment is like a jumbled stack of stilts holding up a house.

There’s enough stilts that if a few of them get eaten by termites, there’s
enough redundancy to keep the house upright. The system is interconnected and
deep enough to end up fine.

What’re happening is that many supports are dead, others are rotten and still
more are weakening.

This means that eventually, one support will collapse and set off a contagion.
A collapse chain, similar to what happened during the 2008 crisis.

Reef collapse means a whole chunk of ecosystem dies - and it’s never coming
back in multiple human life times. This impacts every creature that depends on
that ecosystem.

------
DavidPiper
We'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 decades if not centuries.

/opinion

~~~
roenxi
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
emission levels". There is a branch that wants cheap, and a branch that wants
specific technologies. And the status quo seems to be holding until Australia
decides which option is better.

~~~
cschwarm
> 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.

~~~
roenxi
> In a free market setting, nuclear is not going to be cheap.

Costs haven't stopped Germany trying to jump ship to solar, and that hasn't
turned out half as well as France from an economic or environmental
perspective. Australia is one close election away from the Greens pushing
something similar on to us.

Australia is composed of unusually large, flat, desolate geotechnically stable
areas. We produce large amounts of raw materials, including steel, and have
some of the most extensive uranium deposits currently known about. We have a
highly educated population.

The next time we have one of those big once-in-a-generation crashes and the
government is looking for a great big expensive infrastructure project to soak
up some excess capacity, it would be absolutely fantastic if a nuclear plant
was at least on the cards.

Currently, it is banned. It is banned for no good reason. And banning
something because the peanut gallery thinks it might be expensive is not a
good move. And, and this is my central point in this thread, none of this is
because the far right has an irrational love of coal.

~~~
intended
What does nuclear power have to do with the coral reefs?

As far is know, it was ocean acidification which is killing corals, and then
run off/pollution?

~~~
roenxi
Not a huge amount; but I got riled up reading "the far-rights are ...
maintaining Australia's CO2 emission levels". I sometimes get called far right
in political discussion, and as far as I'm concerned Australia has a perfectly
good option to lower CO2 emissions that is being blocked by the far left. I
want to see more nuclear power stations, they look like a good idea to me.

There is a big coal mine in the works (Adani) and any outflows from that mine
have some potential to add further stress to the reef ecosystem, so coal v.
nuclear might be tangentially related there.

------
ggm
As a Brisbane resident I've been lucky enough to visit the north central reef
twice in the last 30 years. If you are a casual visitor (as I was) the damage
is for many people, theoretical because you have no basis to compare, and the
reef charter boats go to the best places you can find to see the best
diversity. I know it's real. It harder too see and understand it's extent.

Also, much tourism runs in the northern-central reef, but the southern reef is
actually visitable, if slightly less spectacular and less developed onshore
for tourism and hospitality. You can still see a rich diverse reef from heron
island or lady Musgrave. It's not as "wow" as up north.

TL;DR yes, the reef is highly damaged and in extreme danger. Come visit
anyway: you'll have fun, you will still see a rich diverse ecosystem (albiet
in stress and failing globally) and the reef community needs your dollars.

Its worse if you don't come visit.

~~~
ianai
How does visiting help?

~~~
2muchcoffeeman
Tourism dollars. The pollys would think more about saving it if money was on
the line.

And it is a spectacular place to visit.

~~~
6nf
It doesn't matter, Australian politicians can't save the reef no matter what
they do. The reef isn't dying because of pollution or whatever, it's dying
because the ocean temperature is increasing and nothing we do will stop that
in time.

~~~
ggm
All the more reason to visit.

------
jaytaylor
Why 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/coral-
hawaii/](https://sailhawaii.com/hawaii-wildlife/coral-hawaii/)

~~~
thiagocsf
How could something that dies at a mere human touch have survived for so long?

~~~
disc
That's a bit relativistic; no? How could something that dies at a mere gram of
arsenic have survived for so long?

------
singularity2001
It first looked like after the last mass wipe-out 1998 corals adapted or new
resilient variants took over:

[http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/reefs_at_risk_3-1.jpg](http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/reefs_at_risk_3-1.jpg)

But can they keep up with the change?

------
jimmcslim
Well, we’ve just had another “coup” here in Australia... our 6th Prime
Minister in 10 years, so yeah there’s definitely a steady hand on the tiller
of Australian climate policy...

~~~
cam_l
Oh, come on now. The previous prime minister Mal (and current deputy leader
Josh) gave the great barrier reef $444m. They are doing their very best to
save it.

I mean sure, the charity they gave it to never asked for it, and have only 6
people working for them. And of course they were good friends of the party,
ex-exxon, ex-origin (gas fracking), ex-jbp (most corrupt gov in aus history).
No oversight, no investigation, no input from the environment minister, just a
big lump of cash... "for the reef". But they probably will do _something_ with
it.[0]

[0] [https://newmatilda.com/2018/08/20/turnbull-govt-implodes-
sti...](https://newmatilda.com/2018/08/20/turnbull-govt-implodes-still-making-
policy-just-really-really-bad-policy/#attachment_57600)

~~~
mirimir
It doesn't matter. There's no way that Australia could "save" the reef. At
best, maybe they could bioengineer something that looked enough like a reef to
keep tourists happy. Or maybe just replace it with plastic and stuff ;)

~~~
fungi
We could be global leaders committed to reducing green house gas emissions
ASAP.

No we could not single handily turn the ship around, nobody ever said we
could.

But we could be leaders and work hard for the greater good. Many many people
have said we should do that.

~~~
mirimir
Those are admirable sentiments. And it's great to be optimistic. But if the
models are at all relevant, it's probably already too late.

------
grecy
Not that the headline exactly matches the article, but at this point is there
any well educated forward-thinking person who _doesn 't_ think the planet is
headed for a catastrophe?

The population of humans is booming.. and surely any intelligent person can
see that eventually, at some point something will have to give. Maybe it will
be when there are 10 billion of us, or 20, or 100, but surely, at some point
something's going to break in a very big way.

~~~
wolf550e
UN world population projection for 2100 is 11.2B. Stop with the Malthusianism.

[https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/world-
popul...](https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/world-population-
prospects-the-2017-revision.html)

~~~
wott
For 2050, they expected:

* in 1998: 8.9 B

* in 2006: 9.2 B

* in 2010: 9.3 B

* in 2012: 9.6 B

* in 2017: 9.8 B

That means that they constantly have to revise upwards their scenario because
it does not happen as expected and the population grows each time faster. In
20 years, they had to add 1 extra billion people to their forecast...

------
Evidlo
Interesting article, but man is there a ton of bloat on that page. I could
feel my phone heating up in my hand.

~~~
donbright
my 2007 macbook could barely load it.

~~~
cknoxrun
I enable Reader by default on all websites (you can then opt out on those it
does not play well with). Of course that's only if you use Safari.

------
singularity2001
Are there any studies on the contribution of Monsanto/Bayer pesticides on
coral death?

------
mothsonasloth
Is 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.

~~~
v___ger
The decidability factor is exploited by the side with skin in the game. Those
that would be bankrupted by expensive restrictions on behavior, or
restrictions designed to prevent such business entirely, know that they can
point to unpreventable externalities like caldera volcanos and extinction
event asteroids as a means to arm consumers with a toolkit to rationalize
hedonism.

As if to say, live well now, because what if any of these other catastrophies
strike, and obviate your life savings and insurance policies. You could have
spent that money on good times today, but living with your means, and planning
for a future that possibly doesn’t exist will leave you kicking yourself
during the rapture.

The other side also has existential skin in the game, in the sense that a
destroyed inhospitable biosphere is the figurative eating of our only free
lunch, and understands the optics of the decision, but hasn’t come up with
selfish motives to prey upon the undisciplined weakness of the unwashed
masses. Mostly because such principles of psychological exploitation for
personal gain (the joy of living in a world where the ice caps don’t melt and
unleash category six hurricanes on a monthly basis in every quadrant of the
world) are unrelatable to their own motivations to good conduct.

This asymmetry of operations means an unfair fight, and thus a waiting game,
each biding everyone’s time until it’s too late, but undeniable.

Until then, the level of money poured into this system is only equalized by
the perception of threat on the part of the hedonists. The more they feel
threatened, the more they spend to fight the shadow of the obvious truth that
will ultimate rob them of all inaction anyway. They aren’t even fighting their
do-gooder counterpart. They’re fighting their own capacity to continue typical
behavior, with diminishing returns. Shooting themselves in the foot, to
maintain a gun collection of foot guns.

~~~
mothsonasloth
I see, I was more referring to the people / think tanks and charity groups who
are "raking" it in.

I am almost tempted to setup a research project to prove that climate change
is making people's Cats more aloof. Maybe I will get some free money :)

Then I can setup another initiative proving that Dogs are consistently happy,
debunking the cat /climate research.

------
danschumann
The sci-fi writer in me envisions a story about a future where humans exist,
and there is only one species of fish in the ocean, and everyone is sick of
eating it.

~~~
quickben
Apparently the medusas will eat whatever is left from the fish. They thrive in
high acidity.

~~~
api
Ocean acidification frightens me more than climate change. Moving Miami is
doable. Look at how fast Dubai was built. Sea walls and flood control are also
things we know how to do. Ocean ecosystem collapse could be absolutely
catastrophic and there is no mitigation.

~~~
labster
In theory if you could mix the oceans faster (I know lol), you could begin
dissolving the deposited calcium carbonate at the bottom and buffering the
oceans with even more bicarbonate ions. Unfortunately this happens naturally
on the time scale of centuries, which is super fast for geology but not great
news for corals.

~~~
api
Maybe if we all collect our unused and expired baking soda...

~~~
selimthegrim
Cocaine’s a hell of a drug...

------
sampo
The actual title of the article is: _Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive
death’_ , and that's what the article is about. There are only cursory
mentions of climate change in general.

~~~
Tomte
The title on CNN‘s main page, from where I copied it, is precisely the
submitted title.

Yes, I hate how media outfits use several titles for the same piece. Readable
heading vs. HTML title tag (which the bookmarklet uses) is another
discrepancy.

But I mostly hate it because you just know that someone on HN will not
understand this reality and try to give you a hard time.

------
1996
Those that predicted "no catastrophe, business as usual" were outcompeted in
the quest for catchy headlines!

------
negadave
It's cognitive dissidents. We all know this is happening to every aspect of
our enviornment and that we as humans are behind it. But of course we're not
going to give up our material world, and we'll continue to disbelieve only
because it threatens our very nature of the animal that minipulates materials.
The planet isn't doomed, we are. We're creating conditions that are feeding
back on us in a negitive way. We will be our own distruction; probably be
creating a nice warm enviornment for some disease to mutate and run rampant,
where the only humans left will be some isolated populations of humans. To
Moburg in Hunter S. Thompson's "Rum Diaries, "The only animals to claim a god,
yet behave the least lile they have one."

~~~
dev_dull
Fairly morose even for internet standards. The Earth is plenty capable of
plunging into an ice age without human intervention. Also no matter what an
asteroid is eventually going to destroy the earth or it will get swallowed up
by some exploding star.

Those facts still should paralyze you. We are all plenty capable of improving
the lives of ourselves and others today. What’s stopping you?

~~~
mirimir
Isn't that whataboutism?

None of those things are relevant for you and your children and grandchildren.
But global climate change and ecological collapse almost certainly will be.

