Slashdot Mirror
Australia OKs Dumping Dredge Waste In Barrier Reef
An anonymous reader writes "Australia's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has approved the dumping of 3 million cubic meters of dredge waste in park waters. The decision has been blasted by environmentalists. 'This is a sad day for the reef and anyone who cares about its future,' said WWF Great Barrier Reef campaigner Richard Leck. 'The World Heritage Committee will take a dim view of this decision, which is in direct contravention of one of its recommendations.'"
This might help:
https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/coal-seam-gas/unesco-great-barrier-reef
It's absolutely disgraceful that politicians can be so short sighted as to allow this to happen. It makes my blood boil.
And by "reef", they mean a patch of silt 25km away from the actual reef.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
And like most other pronouncements made by a government authority which are expected to attract negative publicity, this decision was made and released on a Friday afternoon.
Had it been something for which the government authority wanted maximum publicity, they would have made the announcement at the start of the week. (Sunday. Monday.)
I hate it when government departments work the news cycle ... it feels dirty.
As an average American, I understand.
No, the purpose of the dredging operation is to expand the coal port at Abbott Point.
The problem is that they're ignoring legitimate environmental concerns (and to the barrier reef, silt is waste) for financial convenience because it would cost more to dump it somewhere else that isn't right next a fragile ecosystem.
You are attempting to oversimplify things because you cant understand the real concerns here.
You are also attempting to prevent legitimate rebuttals of your point by attacking the person and using thought terminating cliches because your point isn't strong enough to stand on it's own merits.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Yep, it is called a moral panic. In Australia, it worked for guns a few decades ago, and it is still working today with silly things like this or restrictions on porn of small breasted women, etc.
Fool me once, shame on me, fool me constantly, I must be Australian.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
As an Australian with some ability to read and the knowledge that this "waste" is sand sucked up from the seabed a short distance away
As an Australian with quite an ability to read, the ability to think and quite a bit of understanding on the subject, the "waste" is called silt and being quite fine (extremely fine sand) tends to travel quite a distance when dumped... This is why it cant be dumped closer to Abbott point, because it'll go straight back into the channel they were dredging.
So dumping it on the great barrier reef is easier as transporting it to a safe dumping zone is expensive.
You seem to think it's OK because it's sand, this is where your understanding of the subject ends, coral you see doesn't do too well when sand gets dumped on it and 25 KM away is definitely not far enough to ensure the silt does not reach the reef. Realistically the expansion at Abbott point should never have been approved.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
They have chosen a safe dumping zone where the movement of silt won't cause problems. But the entire east coast of Queensland, however, is the marine park, so all the safe dumping zones are inside the 'park'. So that means that GBRMPA has to check the details and make sure that what the engineers have worked out is a safe dumping zone is actually one, and that the currents won't take large quantities of fine silt onto reefs. They have done so, worked out that it is, and the world moves on.
Now whether anyone should be digging up coal and shipping it to places where it will be burnt is another matter. But the placement of the dredge spoil is simple engineering.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
The waste is just sand and a bit of mud (not toxic at all) and they are *not* dumping it on the reef. They are dumping it in a barren stretch of sand that doesn't even have any seagrass or notable life. It is far enough away from the actual reef to not be an issue and they have a maximum amount per year they can dump and a window that they are allowed to do it in (outside of spawning season).
If environmentalists want to be taken seriously they should not cry wolf.
Now here's the unsurprising news about the money trail - The project we are discussing is a joint venture between "mining magnates" Gina Reinhart, and you guessed it, Senator Clive Palmer.
I'm sure they can find somewhere suitable.
Yes, and that place is the open ocean beyond the reef or as clean landfill, but "doing the right thing" would mean Clive and Gina (world's richest woman) would have to spend the money they thought they could save by socialising the risks involved.
At the end of the day it's really quite simple, parks are not created for use as cheap landfill sites for the mining industry, why such an application would even be considered is beyond me. Worse still if the government were to reverse the decision, they will probably be sued for the extra costs and several million mugs like me will end up paying their costs anyway.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
It might surprise you. Dredging like this basically closed the Gladstone mudcrab and barramundi fishery - the anerobic sediments contain trace elements which suddenly became bioavailable when exposed to oxygen. They were finding lesions on crab shells and fish from being exposed to copper, mercury, arsenic, aluminium, lead etc... I posted a link to a paper elsewhere in this thread.