
Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage' - mjfern
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/10/great-barrier-reef-terminal-stage-australia-scientists-despair-latest-coral-bleaching-data?
======
crawrey
I grew up on the coast of the Great Barrier Reef in North Queensland and I can
say that the current state of the reef is almost unrecognisable to what it was
20-odd years ago.

While a large part of this damage has been caused by rising sea temperatures,
another large component is due to the run-off from agriculture, refineries and
mining. The latter being a directly contributed by the local population.

The region is currently in a economic recession and many of the mines and
refineries have either slowed or ceased operation. Anecdotally, the sentiment
of the population affected by (un)employment by these industries are either
unaware or ignorant towards the damage that the industries are having on this
sensitive ecosystem. Instead they are consumed by how they are going to make
ends meet.

In this environment, it is unthinkable to allow Adani expand their Carmichael
mine to further exacerbate the situation. Add to this, that a former Adani
board member is appointed to evaluate the environmental impacts of the
expansion. Adani is the biggest direct threat to Australia, both
environmentally and economically and they are in talks with the government to
be provided with a $1 billion tax-payer funded railway line. Adani and the
Carmichael mine expansion are rifled with corruption.

The issue of the reef and climate-change in general is a fairly untouched
issue in Australian politics. I'm not sure that we are going to get anywhere
without foreign intervention.

If you are interested, I do urge you to read some material on Adani and the
Carmichael coal mine expansion and perhaps donate to a "StopAdani" cause.

Wish us luck.

~~~
jozzas
The QLD government is doing some good work on water quality - particularly
engaging with farmers, reducing pesticide and fertiliser runoffs, and reducing
erosion. But it's all underfunded and therefore not coordinated or widespread
enough.

The federal government has ignored these issues for decades while we've been
burning coal for power and digging it up and exporting it to the biggest
polluters.

It's disgusting, really.

~~~
nojvek
I lived in Australia for 10 years and got a chance to visit great barrier reef
multiple times. It's what started my love for water.

Its not the same now. If by the time I have kids and they don't get to have
the experience of lush underwater life, I will definitely believe we humans
are cancer for the planet.

Australia is a rich and educated country. If they can't fix the mess they
created I don't have much hopes for the other parts of the world.

~~~
NamTaf
We are a rich and educated country, however our politics is one that promotes
extreme toxicity in the major parties towards any 'difficult' issues. Look at
how non-committal MPs are about so many issues when interviewed. Never mind
how much of a joke parliament is, especially during question time, where it's
more important to score petty points against the other side than debate
policy. You just have to look at the UK Commons question time footage for a
very eye-opening contrast.

~~~
NLips
Are you saying that e.g. Prime Minister's questions is an example of good and
useful debate?

If so, then I am so very sorry for Aussies...

~~~
flukus
Granted it's mostly from the outside looking in, but your politics does like a
bit better than ours. There seems to be a lot less pressure to hold the party
line for one thing, which is very rigid here and there seems to be more local
engagement. I'd appreciate someone who has experienced both more closely to
correct me though.

Much of the current trouble in Australian politics though is because we have
the senate which is proportionally elected. I'd argue this is a good thing
overall, but our two major parties (particularly the current one) don't seem
to have realised that they have to negotiate policy to make it pass.

~~~
speeder
I am from Brazil, that theoretically has a fully modern democracy...

Parties learned to "negotiate" so well they became meaningless, frequently
absurd laws pass that all parties allowed, you see multiparty tickets that
include extreme left and right at same time, and when a big corruption scandal
shows uo we find out almost all parties were involved...

I personally believe Brazil need to copy UK and put at least our monarch back
in power, we had less political problems during monarchy (and much more
infrastructure investment) and the royal family all live good noncorrupt lives
(many run successful law abiding business, some are seen as example of ethics,
for example having business that repair environmental damage instead of
causing it)

~~~
nsajko
Well of course the former royal family is not corrupt, they are not in power!

At least in the current system, the politicians hold responsibility and can
get exposed, prosecuted, and convicted for corruption (eg.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Car_Wash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Car_Wash)
), after which you can try to get somebody else elected; how would it be
better if you put an arbitrary family in power?

------
spodek
Many posts here about how sad and disgusted people are. Not much about people
taking personal responsibility.

What do people think the carrying capacity of the planet means? Sustaining
more humans means sacrificing other life that competes for our resources. It
means pollution rising until it doesn't quite kill us but is well above the
levels of a pristine, clean environment.

Nobody wants to live near the carrying capacity because approaching it means
sacrificing anything that doesn't keep us alive.

Every round trip flight across the country you take contributes almost one
year's allotment from the Paris agreement for one person --
[https://co2.myclimate.org/en/portfolios?calculation_id=71970...](https://co2.myclimate.org/en/portfolios?calculation_id=719701).
Flying first class and you're well over it. Eating meat contributes a lot too.
Having more kids in western cultures contributes significantly.

Who among us, reading this, hasn't gone over their annual limit in just a few
hours of flying, not to mention their regular life otherwise? How many have
blown past their Paris limits already this year?

Some would say the damage was done by past generations. Okay, well what
beautiful part of nature will our behavior destroy years from now? People keep
posting to HN that since we can't change that a lot will happen, it doesn't
matter any more, we should just enjoy ourselves, but there are different
degrees of destruction.

Alternatively, we can fly less, drive less, eat much less meat, and have fewer
kids. We don't need to wait for legislation. In fact, it's the fastest way to
get legislation, since politicians follow voters.

In my experience, acting on all those things improved my life tremendously
(including not flying for a year+ [http://www.inc.com/joshua-spodek/365-days-
without-flying.htm...](http://www.inc.com/joshua-spodek/365-days-without-
flying.html)), more than almost anything else. I'm more fit, enjoy my
neighborhood and neighbors, and spend less money and there's nothing special
about me.

~~~
milesrout
Quite frankly I think blaming it on flying is incredibly offensive.

It's got nothing, at all, to do with cars or flying. They're tiny pollutors
compared to industry, specifically the dairy industry, transportation by truck
and manufacturing things in China.

Sure we could fly less and drive less but that would do fuck all, and
certainly having fewer kids isn't going to solve any problems. Having fewer
kids in the west actually just means _white people_ having fewer kids in the
west, we're well below replacement rate and are being rapidly replaced by
people coming from high birthrate countries like India.

The _only_ thing that will actually solve the problem is sustained government
intervention in trucking, dairy and industry, _worldwide_.

~~~
jsperson
Offensive!? You're of course free to get offended, but pointing out that
flying pollutes a lot relative to the proposed limits is certainly valid.

I think the point is that there is an opportunity to take personal
responsibility here. Why wait for government? Using a couple of your examples,
buying less stuff made in China would go a long way.

~~~
hobs
Because collective action is the only way to make a dent in multinational
corporations that poison the environment?

While changing the agreement and raising awareness is good, its basically
rearranging the deck chairs on the titantic.

Do you know how many "upright citizens" I know who dont shop at wallmart? All
my friends, family, and people I work with. And how's wallmart doing
economically right now?

Even a decently large group of citizens taking action has minimal impact on
the global scale.

Either convince the governments of the world or expect the slide to continue
at an ever increasing pace.

~~~
lhopki01
Do you accept that even if governments do take action every person will still
need to live within a carbon allowance or else global warming will still
happen? If so even if you convince governments you'll still have to fly less
and live in smaller houses and eat more locally sourced food.

------
Luminarys
Although I've never seen the Great Barrier Reef, I was recently in Belize and
snorkeled around its Barrier Reef. It was painfully obvious that the reefs
were extensively bleached(though still quite beautiful). It's quite shocking
to think that 30 years ago the reefs looked completely different from now and
in another 30 years may not even be around. I hope that in the future we won't
be reduced to having to point to pictures in a book if people want to witness
the beauty of nature but this seems increasingly inevitable. What a shame.

~~~
nolok
Sadly at the speed this is going they won't last 30 more years. We've already
reached their limit point, and when they go the entire eco-system they host
are going to die with them.

And then the greet barrier reef will be a memory.

------
jozzas
There are some excellent scientists and programs attempting to improve water
quality (particularly catchments that flow into the reef) and the crown of
thorns starfish.

Unfortunately these are badly underfunded, not coordinated at a national level
as they should be, and do not address the biggest threat - climate change. The
reef is doomed unless something is done about CO2 emissions. It's probably
already too late.

The loss of the GBR will see a collapse of tourism industries, and entire
ecosystems will die off. There are going to be huge impacts in the next 15-20
years to come out of this.

A lot of low lying countries in the pacific will get the triple whammy of
increased cyclone activity, rising sea levels and a loss of reefs and the fish
populations that they subsist on. There are huge humanitarian disasters ahead.

------
ohashi
I saw a bleaching event in Thailand last year, it really is depressing to see.
This year, the same sites have seemingly recovered and I'm really happy about
that. But seeing the pictures of completely bleached white corals in the
article and knowing that's probably the future for a lot of these reefs breaks
my heart. Coral reefs are magical places and we're destroying them for future
generations, maybe even the current one.

~~~
dingo_bat
> Coral reefs are magical places

How so? How are they different from any other natural ecosystem?

~~~
pluteoid
They are one of the most biodiverse habitats, if not _the_ most diverse, home
to a vast array of often spectacular species. And unlike other highly
biodiverse habitats, much of this spectacle is densely represented and
constantly on show.

In a tropical rainforest, you can ramble uncomfortably through dense
undergrowth for hours, hearing many animals but glimpsing few, usually from a
limited range of phyla, and seeing mostly plants. On a healthy reef, drift but
a few minutes through the clear, warm seawater, and the sheer abundance and
variety of algae, corals, anenomes, molluscs, echinoderms, sponges and many
other invertebrate phyla, as well as algae and of course fish, will be
immediately apparent.

------
H4CK3RM4N
Sadly I can't remember the last time we had any real action to protect the
reef, and our current government is all too willing to put businesses above
the environment.

~~~
flukus
Most of the damage is part of climate change in general, so real action to
protect the reef involves the world drastically cutting carbon emissions.
Meanwhile, we can't even prevent things like this happening right next to the
reef:

[http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-10/abbot-point-coal-
termi...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-10/abbot-point-coal-terminal-
released-into-wetlands/8430934)

~~~
H4CK3RM4N
I was trying to subtly hint at how absolutely fucking unacceptable it is that
something like the Abbot Point coal terminal was approved. How hard is it?

------
huckyaus
My cousin Sam[0] runs the environmental side of things at GetUp and is putting
a lot of time and effort into raising awareness about the reef. They're
currently fundraising[1] for a targeted campaign in 12 Liberal electorates
with the aim of encouraging MPs to break their silence and listen to their
constituents on the issues surrounding Adani and the GBR.

Full disclosure: GetUp is a politically partisan organisation with strong left
leanings. But I think the work they're doing around these issues is rooted
more in common sense than politics.

Is anyone else involved in any grassroots-level efforts to save the reef? I'd
be interested to hear about them.

[0] [https://twitter.com/samregester](https://twitter.com/samregester)

[1] [https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/great-barrier-reef--
3/the...](https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/great-barrier-reef--3/the-white-
death-of-the-reef/turnbull-schmoozes-while-the-reef-is-dying)

~~~
altstar
Why only Liberal electorates? Queensland government is Labor. Why not target
them?

~~~
huckyaus
Because the Federal government, not the QLD government, are weighing up a $1bn
concessional loan for Adani's Carmichael coal mine. GetUp campaigners clearly
feel they can make an impact at the Federal level; it worked during the last
election.

That being said, they are equally critical of the QLD government and the
corporate entities that are supporting Adani. Have a read of Sam's timeline.

[https://twitter.com/samregester/status/849177022085578752](https://twitter.com/samregester/status/849177022085578752)

------
Red_Tarsius
This is what keeps me up at night. If we don't find an efficient way to
extract CO2 and methane from the atmosphere, I fear that mankind might go
extinct.

~~~
erikpukinskis
Mankind is absurdly resilient. We are like rats or cockroaches but a hundred
times more adaptable. Billions of people could die. We might lose 99% of
species. But human extinction is out of the question.

We could live in bubbles of air under the ocean huddled around nuclear
reactors if we needed to. Roaches couldn't do that (without our help).

~~~
flukus
> Mankind is absurdly resilient. We are like rats or cockroaches but a hundred
> times more adaptable.

Are we? We've been around for a fraction of the time and nearly gone extinct
at least once
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory)).
We also have a tendency to build absurdly interconnected systems so a single
failure has ripple effects, we see this in things like the late bronze age
collapse where most civilizations in the Mediterranean disapeared
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse)).

~~~
ckastner
You just listed two incidents which, on the face of it, support the
grandparent's argument.

~~~
flukus
Being on the right side of a knifes edge event (Toba example) doesn't prove
we're resilient, it shows how susceptible we are to forces beyond our control,
just as retrospectively guessing a coin toss doesn't mean we can predict the
future, that's the anthropic principal at work. The second example shows how
susceptible Civilization is.

For more examples look at our closest relatives which survived on earth longer
than we did but ultimately went extinct.

~~~
ckastner
Can you please provide a credible example for such an event.

Regarding your first example, Toba: we have no record of what may or may not
have happened to a small population of Neanderthals 75.000 years ago, and your
source itself states "Both the link and global winter theories are highly
controversial".

Your second example marks the decline of a civilization, but does not even
come close to what could be described as an "extinction".

~~~
flukus
For Toba, I wouldn't expect it to be definitively settled one way or another
for a long time, if ever. Volcanology, geology and genetics are very young
fields of study, particularly in developing nations that are home to much of
the evidence. The theory is that it caused a population bottleneck in humans
though, not Neanderthals (who probably had a pretty hard time as well) and
that humans nearly fell below the genetic diversity needed to survive.

It's the only example that I know of because humans have only been around for
the blink of an eye, Toba maybe be the worst that nature has thrown at us,
which is a fraction of what it's capable of.

There are some other more documented examples the merely bought down
civilizations (or helped anyway), like the Justinian Famine
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather_events_of_535%...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather_events_of_535%E2%80%93536))
thought to be caused by a volcanic eruption.

> Your second example marks the decline of a civilization, but does not even
> come close to what could be described as an "extinction".

I didn't mean to imply otherwise, though I would say they are one and the same
thing in the long term. For humanity to survive and spread beyond our planet
we need civilization and we've used up so many natural resources that I'm not
sure we could rebuild one to match what we have today without them.

~~~
antisthenes
> I didn't mean to imply otherwise, though I would say they are one and the
> same thing in the long term. For humanity to survive and spread beyond our
> planet we need civilization and we've used up so many natural resources that
> I'm not sure we could rebuild one to match what we have today without them.

There's no point in spreading beyond our planet if we cannot create a fully
sustainable planetary civilization first. The energy expenditures of GOING to
another STAR and terraforming a planet in its orbit are many magnitudes more
than it takes to create a _paradise_ here, on Earth, at least from the
perspective of energy requirements of modern countries.

------
orschiro
The sad fact is that even these devastating developments do not make us change
systemically to the extent required to counterfeit them.

~~~
dmoy
counteract?

~~~
orschiro
Haha, that is what I meant. Sorry for the error.

------
psynapse
This really saddens me.

I spent a week or so on Lady Elliot Island more than a decade ago, snorkelling
every day. Because it is a protected area, the fauna are unafraid of people. I
would dive down into these cavernous bowls of coral and be surrounded by
schools of fish, rays, turtles. It was amazing.

I live in Europe now, but I always hoped to take my children there to see it
one day. Seems there won't be much to see.

------
infradig
The real culprit for coral bleaching? A swift fall in mean sea level during a
major El Nino event. See:
[http://www.biogeosciences.net/14/817/2017/](http://www.biogeosciences.net/14/817/2017/)

~~~
kerbalspacepro
The Guardian article is about a 2017 event, not the 2016 event that the BG
article references.

------
rodionos
> Coral bleaches when the water it’s in is too warm for too long. The coral
> polyps gets stressed and spit out the algae that live in inside them.
> Without the colourful algae, the coral flesh becomes transparent, revealing
> the stark white skeleton beneath.

------
zipwitch
This is merely the inevitable outcome of what we've known has been coming for
a while, even if many haven't wanted to acknowledge that the corals were
effectively already dead. [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/opinion/a-world-
without-co...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/opinion/a-world-without-
coral-reefs.html)

------
josscrowcroft
Is improving water quality the decided-upon method for preventing (or even
reversing) bleaching of coral reefs?

It seems like that ship has sailed, and now more technological advances are
required.

Speaking from zero expertise or experience in marine biology, is it not
possible to manufacture massive quantities of synthetic coral that somehow
corrects for the changing water quality to enable coral life to flourish?

~~~
tim333
The problem seems to be the water temperature. It's not easy to fix.

~~~
josscrowcroft
Again speaking from zero expertise, would it be possible to genetically
engineer coral lifeforms to adapt to higher temperatures?

~~~
scott_karana
Maybe, but it's part of an ecoSYSTEM, so do other reef dwellers all need to be
modified? How does that affect migration and comptetion? Etc

------
good_vibes
What can we do? Serious question.

~~~
dingo_bat
A better question would be: why should we care? I really don't see much value
in spending a lot of effort and money into protecting a coral reef.

~~~
kakarot
Are you asking for evidence of environmental utility provided by reef systems?
There are plenty and my sister post already mentioned some of them.

But the metric of "does putting in all this money and effort to fix the
problem we created give us something back in return?" is absolutely poisonous.
It's that selfish "is preserving this environmental habitat that has been
around for millions of years worth my time or money?" that allowed us to dig
this grave in the first place.

~~~
dingo_bat
> that allowed us to dig this grave in the first place.

What grave? Things are better than ever!

~~~
kakarot
I'm speaking of environmental impact. Sure, things may be looking good if you
look at base crime statistics, hunger statistics, and war statistics. But
certainly not if you look at the bigger picture. Way too many unknowns at this
point in terms of consequences for unchecked industrialism for us to simply
say, "Yep, things are good here."

But I'll bite. What metric are you using to say things are better than ever?

~~~
dingo_bat
We are healthier than ever, living longer than ever. More of our babies are
surviving for longer, even in the poorest places on Earth.

We are using more renewable energy, less coal. Every year we add more
solar/wind capacity than the past decade (just a guess). Soon, driverless
electric cars will transport people autonomously, without creating any
pollution, and road accidents will dwindle down to ~0.

More people have access to clean water, modern medicine, and we have
treatments/preventions for the deadliest of diseases.

I mean, what's not to love?

~~~
kakarot
You're focusing on positive aspects of the modern areas of the modern world.
Not all of the world is so peachy keen.

Yes, we live with countless blessings. But this is in spite of continued
industrial negligence and increasing international economic pressure.

In spite of the fact that our wages increasingly do not match our economic
contributions, while the costs of living continues to rise just about
everywhere in modern countries. In spite of increasingly militarized police
states engaging in targeted socioeconomic suppression across the globe.

In spite of many, many things.

I want to have optimism for the future, too. But I'm not going to ignore the
multitudes of problems we face today, and will face tomorrow.

------
ozy
So ... when do we shoot some rockets high up and spray something reflecting
sunlight, changing earths albedo? Plan B?

------
Slobbinson
Pauline Hanson & Malcolm Roberts will pose in front of the coral display at
the Townsville Aquarium and tell us it's all a beat-up.

~~~
Gravityloss
[https://climateslamdown.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/easterbu...](https://climateslamdown.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/easterbunnyislandcolour1.jpg)

------
hoodoof
x

~~~
cyberferret
I really wonder if the 'job creation' that goes with the mining and dredging
they want to do to the dying reef will counterbalance the estimated 100,000
jobs in the tourism industry that are predicted to disappear once the reef is
completely dead and no one wants to visit any more.

Then again, I guess it is not really about the jobs per se, but rather the $$$
kickback in royalties and 'spotters fees' that are paid into political
campaign funds for passing the wrong bills through parliament.

------
harry8
I've been hearing the reef is at death's door for 30 years. When I go, it
looks amazing. Still. Maybe this scare campaign is different to all the other
ones. Maybe this time as they cry wolf there really is a wolf. Maybe... If so
it's a perfect example of the environmental movement destroying their own
credibility so that not many in Australia, among those who love the reef, care
what they're saying this week. People need to call bullshit on bullshit
whether that bullshit is in the service of great justice or not. It's still
bullshit and it still trashes credibility. Outrage fatigue is far worse when
you know you've been had.

~~~
kakarot
Wow nice anecdotal evidence. You sure just changed my mind! I knew those
environmental scientists were full of shit with their rigid studies and
methodological collection of samples. There's no way they could have studied
the coral reef as thoroughly as you have. Any other rapidly accelerating
environmental destruction I should pretend doesn't exist while I'm at it?

~~~
harry8
I think you missed the point there. This may well be true, and I noted that. I
sure believed when I was a teenager that the reef would be gone by 2000, which
was what I was reading in the guardian weekely on airmail paper back when that
was the thing.

Why don't people care that something as amazing, beautiful, and awesome as the
reef is under serious threat? Because we're all aresholes who love
Trump/Tony/Maggie, obviously or just sheeple. There is no problem at all with
alarmist catastrophism in the conservation movement and obviously no problem
with alienating anyone who isn't wildly socialist. Pretend it's not an issue
by all means but it won't be terribly helpful to achieve, you know, actual
conservation.

~~~
kakarot
Parents will often tell their kids they need to leave at a certain time
because they expect their kids will not accurately gauge their limited time
and will not meet the ultimatum.

I'm not saying this is the sole reason we get non-conservative estimates of
environmental impact over a period of time, but it definitely applies. Most of
us, due to various factors both in and out of our control, are too self-
centered to understand that just because something will not disappear in our
lifetime doesn't mean it isn't their immediate responsibility. It's best to
assume the earth will shake and sky will split tomorrow and act accordingly.
Sure, this alarmist approach can lead to burnout with a large, ignorant
portion of the population but we can supplement this with proper education
instead of trying to find a single golden bullet.

On top of that, we can only be so accurate when speaking about time-spans of
climate-related events we have never had a chance to study as thoroughly as
today. But the overwhelming majority of scientists who have found themselves
studying the climate feel a great sense of urgency about making changes while
we can. They know more than anyone how out of our control this will soon be
and how it affects our interconnected ecosystems. So there is a tendency to
lean on conclusions that make waves and turn heads.

And it's not just reefs. For example, the alarmist prophecies of our fuel
supplies drying up within a matter of decades has probably contributed very
positively to extreme efforts by international parties to greenify our energy
production and transportation systems. I doubt people would be trying as hard
to make the switch right now if we still had half a millennium of reserves
left. It's kind of like how many of us tend to procrastinate on our own work
and increasingly put in more effort as the deadline approaches.

~~~
harry8
Sure. You acknowledge the credibility problem that exists and justify it as
great lies in service of great justice.

I don't make that justification. I believe that misinformation, propaganda and
lies undermine the efficient allocation of resources to most effectively deal
with the problems at hand (of which on this planet there are many, starting
with 700m people without adequate access to clean drinking water). Whether
such lies are told by oil companies, communists, facists, environmentalists,
people calling themselves scientists bug engaging in politics or by some
drunk, whether well-meaning or nefarious. Lies lead muddying of the decision
making waters and to sub-optimal outcomes in the short term about specific
decisions and then in the longer term, they destroy the process of the attempt
at honest allocation leading to ridiculous populism of obvious lies and liars.
Such people are provided with more ammunition than they need and can rightly
claim themselves to be liars of the same kind. We've seen it before, we're
seeing some more of it again and it may get worse before it gets better. It
sure won't help the reef. "We're facing disaster but we can lie our way out of
it?" Not much of a rallying cry. "Our lies are better than theirs!" Again...

This one continues to resonate with me, if you haven't read it I highly
recommend you do and work out what you disagree with and why.
[http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm](http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm)

~~~
kakarot
It's been a long time since I've read that. Thank you.

I do not think these are lies. Most of these scientific articles we read are
highly sensationalized. The problem lies within the state of journalism. That
isn't to say there aren't scientists who skew results to get more grant money,
but that isn't really the case here. If you want a more accurate depiction of
how the scientific community feels, stick to reading papers and not popular
science news articles.

That being said... 2/3 of the country's reefs being bleached is not something
you would consider a disaster?

You're conflating budgetary issues here. We can try to save the coral reef AND
allot more money towards humanitarian efforts. That's the point of this
article. They are forsaking their politicians for not making the right choices
with their tax money. They are seeking international help. They aren't asking
Doctors Without Borders to make a donation or bugging local food banks for
money. They would probably rather the money come back from whatever scandalous
Australian political/financial scams are going on. I don't know much about the
state of affairs of the Australian government but don't you think this pretty
much captures the issue?

~~~
harry8
There is /always/ an opportunity cost of any resource allocation. Assessing
these and making the necessary tradeoffs so that they can be efficiently
allocated is the whole ballgame. Muddying that up to influence it is one
approach. It's the one I disagree with totally.

2/3 of the reef bleached is a disaster? I don't know. I don't even know what
that means anymore? It sounds like it? Is it supposed to sound like it? Is it
manipulative because I (and most australians) really do like the reef. Is it
accurate science this time when in the past it has been propaganda?

I have no idea. If it's the latter wolf has been cried too often and I'm
reacting to it as if it's yet another piece of manipulation. This is not a
good state of affairs for those in the environmental movement pointing at it
and the response "Should I believe this more than I believe what Trump says?"
The credibility should so wildly different as to be incomparable, but it
isn't.

~~~
kakarot
Sometimes in our attempts to remain uninfluenced by others, we delude
ourselves instead. Losing the coral reef is absolutely an ecological disaster
because we have humans took it upon ourselves to pollute this planet at
unsustainable levels and it is our responsibility to mitigate the damage we
have caused.

