Slashdot Mirror


'Unprecedented' Bleaching Damages Two-Thirds Of Australia's Great Barrier Reef (bbc.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Unprecedented coral bleaching in consecutive years has damaged two-thirds of Australia's Great Barrier Reef, aerial surveys have shown. The bleaching — or loss of algae — affects a 1,500km (900 miles) area of the reef, according to scientists. The latest damage is concentrated in the middle section, whereas last year's bleaching hit mainly the north. Experts fear the proximity of the two events will give damaged coral little chance to recover.

16 of 130 comments (clear)

  1. I'm honestly blown away... by ckatko · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...by the amount of willful blindness in Australia's government.

    I mean, I thought for sure, once serious, real, things started dying on the planet, people would start caring. But I'm proven wrong every year.

    1. Re:I'm honestly blown away... by gravewax · · Score: 4, Informative

      In the scheme of things there is sweet fuck all the Australian government can do about it. The main contributing factor is ocean temperature changes, Australia trying to affect that in any significant way would be like trying to put out a bushfire by pissing on it.

    2. Re:I'm honestly blown away... by dwywit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And every time someone mentions agricultural runoff (specifically from sugarcane), the lobbyists hit up the national party, and we're all reminded that natural resources and agriculture are untouchables.

      No, it can't be the farmers, they're all "generational custodians" who couldn't possibly do anything harmful to the environment.

      Apologies to those farmers who actually give a crap.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    3. Re:I'm honestly blown away... by Xest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Um, Australia is the biggest coal exporter in the world by quite a margin, so there certainly is something it could do - i.e. stop exporting coal.

      Australia has over a 3rd of the global coal market. It wont stop of course though, because money. If only they'd start utilising that desert for renewables, or start using their massive uranium reserves by pushing research into cleaner nuclear, or offering some of that uninhabitable territory for underground nuclear waste disposal instead.

      Bit of a wasted opportunity really, but hey, change is hard.

      But make no mistake, Australia could single handedly collapse the supply of coal, pushing it's prices up to be unaffordable and forcing a move to renewables, nuclear, and gas, which all avoid to a large degree the warming problem.

      Australia is literally selling out it's national heritage and it can only blame itself.

    4. Re:I'm honestly blown away... by Namarrgon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's plenty they could have done, and plenty they still could do. They could have started reducing emissions decades ago when the scientific evidence first became clear, and they could have invested in a world-leading solar industry instead of still more open-pit coal mines. They could also have given the Reef Marine Park Authority the funding and authority it needed to *effectively* deal with declining water quality, instead of the lip service it gets now, and at least reduced the huge additional stress on the Reef from agricultural run-off.

      Instead, they've repealed our price on carbon, declared that "coal is good for humanity", green-lit even more coal mines, and approved a massive expansion & dredging operation for a coal export port right in the middle of the Reef's coastline (overruling the GBRMPA and even changing the law to allow themselves to ignore expert advice). And to cap it all off, last year they censored any mention of the Reef from a UNESCO report on World Heritage Tourism Sites at Risk (on the ironic grounds that it might affect tourism) - just as the 2016 bleaching event was killing off an unprecedented 67% of the coral in the Reef's northern third.

      Even this extensive damage may have recovered somewhat, given 10-15 years of benign conditions, but a fourth bleaching event the very next year has crushed any hopes of that - the question now is whether we'll lose most of the middle third as well. But hey, at least the government has made sure we'll have coal for our tourists, if not coral.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  2. Re:I'll bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's not so much the cute fishes that the problem here, it's the underlying mechanism of ocean acidification:
    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/16/world/ocean-oxygen-nature/index.html

    aka, the Permian Triassic exctinction, the "great dying", where lots of stuff in the sea died, and algae and fungi bloomed, poisoning the atmosphere killing 90% of all spiecies and snowballing the CO2 level to 2000ppi and 8 degree celsius increase.
    http://www.newsweek.com/carbon-emissions-could-spark-mass-extinction-321061

    It's whether the Trump's and Pajits of this world do enough damage to take pass that runaway point.

  3. Re:I'll bet by Maritz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The only surprise is that you concede any damage is real in the first place.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  4. If you haven't seen it... by tezbobobo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...then you're already too late.

    1. Re:If you haven't seen it... by gravewax · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bleaching isn't a single cause situation. fresh water does cause it (though not to the scales we currently see), also tidal changes, wind at low tide, storms, excessive UV light and of course the main one of water temperature are all causes. basically bleaching is simply a reaction to any environmental stress caused to the coral

  5. Re:I'll bet by jandersen · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'll bet they'll recover

    Oh yes, of course - corals have been around since the Cambrian or thereabouts, but the question is when. And how much of The Great Barrier Reef will be lost? The reef is apparently not incredibly old, but it will take a long time to recover in human terms. Even if we stopped all polluting activity now, there will still be a long period of increasing warming. More heat in the atmosphere means more extreme storms, which mean stronger erosion on coasts and reefs, among other things, and when the coral polyps are not there to rebuild the reef, it will get eroded away. And so on.

    Climate deniers always imagine that climate change is only about an small increase in temperature, so what's the fuss? The fuss is because everything is connected in a complex network, of course; if it was only about slightly more pleasant temperatures, nobody would complain, but it isn't. Take the corals - if the reef dies, not only will they get eroded away (leaving the coast exposed to the sea), but the fish that live there disappear; and since a lot of commercial fisheries depend on those fish stocks, a lot of fishers go out of business. Less fish may also mean less predation on jellyfish larvae, which is probably why we see a marked increase in jellyfish washing up on beaches; this also causes real problems for fishing in some areas. Nature is very complex and we are still only beginning to understand the complexities; but we know enough to see how easily we can unbalance the whole thing, and being reckless out of mere spite is simply incredibly stupid - criminally stupid, I'd say.

  6. Liberal scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    How come before cigarettes, cancer was caused by radiation?

    Let me tell ya, it's a fake new plot by Obama loving scientists to outlaw cigarettes!! That's why!

    My logic is undeniable! I've got awards for science stuff, and I say we need to roll back regulation on tabacco that's holding back the American tabacco industry. Those Obama loving lying scientists and their so called 'science', they claim to know, but they don't know, I know, because my twitter feed told me so.

    Lets make American the leader in cigarettes again!

  7. An excuse for every season by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "We gotta do something or the corals will be dead!"
    "The corals are fine, look, they're thriving."

    "The corals are gone, everything's dead!"
    "Well, then we can as well continue when it's too late to change anything anyway"

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. Re:Meh, will be gone in next ice-age anyway. by Viol8 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Those so called warm periods were localised. They didn't encompass the entire planet.

    "The geography and climate of earth are ever-changing."

    And? Trees fall down naturally in forests. Does that mean we shouldn't be concerned about illegal logging? And climate generally changes over the course of millions of years, not hundreds. Nature can't keep up.

  9. Re:I'll bet by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh I didn't realise that the Great Barrier Reef was in Indonesia. Thanks for correcting that.

    Now a metaphorical causality question. If another man's face hurts due to a sinus infection and I show you this through a peer review study, does that mean we get a free pass at punching you in the face?

    I'm not saying you're wrong, just that an entire body of scientists think that you are.

  10. Re:I'll bet by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All that counts is an objection was made. For the denier, it is irrelevant if the objection is sensible, rational, or even has anything to do with the topic at hand. So long as they raise their hand and making some vaguely intelligible sound, apparently a whole field of scientific inquiry comes crashing down.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  11. Re: burning more Coral is going to save us all. by Thud457 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Rick: Coral!

    Rick: Coral!
    Carl: What, Dad?!
    Rick: Coral, how can you tell a porpoise has a hot date?
    Carl : oh god, no Dad...
    Rick: Because he was bleaching his starfish!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff