Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Great Barrier Reef Gets $379 Million Boost After Coral Dies Off (bloomberg.com)

Posted by msmash on from the moving-forward dept.

The Great Barrier Reef is being given a $379 million boost by Australia in the battle to save the world's largest living structure as it faces mounting challenges such as climate change, agricultural runoff and a coral-eating starfish. From a report: "Like reefs all over the world, the Great Barrier Reef is under pressure," Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said in a statement on Sunday, calling the funding the largest granted to the famous tourist icon. "A big challenge demands a big investment -- and this investment gives our reef the best chance." [...] The new funding comes after Deloitte Access Economics valued the reef last year at A$56 billion, based on an asset supporting tens of thousands of jobs and which contributes A$6.4 billion a year to the economy. Still, that was before a study released this month in Nature showed about 30 percent of the reef, which is bigger than Japan, died off in 2016 during an extended marine heatwave.

104 comments

  1. Horrendous headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "$379 million boost" doesn't mean anything by itself.
    The subject of the clause should be "Australian government". They've just allocated a bunch of money.
    The headline should say that.

    1. Re:Horrendous headline by manu0601 · · Score: 4, Informative

      "$379 million boost" doesn't mean anything by itself.

      TFA actually lists projects that get funded.

      • A$201 million to improve water quality through reducing fertilizer use and adapting new technologies and land management practices
      • A$100 million for science research to restore the reef and boost its resilience
      • A$58 million to fight the coral-eating crown-of-thorns starfish
      • A$45 million for sea country management, coastal clean-up days and to raise awareness
      • A$40 million to enhance reef health monitoring
    2. Re:Horrendous headline by djinn6 · · Score: 0

      A$201 million to improve water quality through reducing fertilizer use and adapting new technologies and land management practices

      Is fertilizers even the problem here? What does land management have to do with the ocean?

      A$45 million for sea country management, coastal clean-up days and to raise awareness

      Isn't this just feel-good stuff?

      Also, no mention of global warming? It's considered a major factor.

    3. Re:Horrendous headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is fertilizers even the problem here? What does land management have to do with the ocean?

      Your asking this question indicates your level of education on the subject is low.

      Isn't this just feel-good stuff?

      Nope.

      Also, no mention of global warming? It's considered a major factor.

      Sorry, it's the American government under the control of a denialist, not the Australian, they budgeted it elsewhere.

    4. Re:Horrendous headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is fertilizers even the problem here? What does land management have to do with the ocean?

      I'm no expert, but have at in some talks at conferences about the subject.

      Land management, yes. A lot of trees have been cleared for cattle grazing, that is causing fine top soil to be washed into the water ways and out into the ocean during rain. Although only a thin layer of sediment gets deposited over the reef, it's enough to change the delicate balance that allows corral to thrive.

      Fertiliser too, the nitrates allow extra algae to grow in the reef, which competes with the coral for nutrients and light.

      Do not ask what people think about Adani building a coal handling plant right beside the reef.

    5. Re:Horrendous headline by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      Is fertilizers even the problem here? What does land management have to do with the ocean?

      I am not sure this is the relevant mechanism for great barrier reef, but land fertilizer overuse is a probable cause for Algal bloom, which in turn will heavily damage ecosystems through hypoxia

    6. Re:Horrendous headline by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Is fertilizers even the problem here?

      Algae blooms block sunlight and when they die, sink, and rot, deeper layers are deprived of oxygen. Coral reefs are very sensitive to water quality.

      What does land management have to do with the ocean?

      A lot. Erosion and runoff carry silt, phosphates, and iron into the ocean.

      Isn't this just feel-good stuff?

      Getting local people involved and changing attitudes can make a big difference.

      Also, no mention of global warming?

      Get a grip. AGW is an enormous global problem that will take generations to fix. That is not something that Australia can do on their own, and certainly not with $379M.

    7. Re:Horrendous headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having lived around the GBR for 10 years. I can say ...

      a) Forget the crown-of-thorns, these have been a problem since day one and the solution isn't going to be money as it's been a constant issue that and has no real solution except for containment and that race is slowly being lost on our end. They're like Cane Toads they just keep coming. But it's always been an issue.

      b) Water quality management. I can say the best is already their doing this. James Cook University produces plenty of environmental scientists who are equipped to do the job. The real demand for this type of work usually resides out the mines and that is a shit show for a lot of them who have difficult times keeping their jobs and are forced move around a lot. So i'm keen to see how more money solves what's already over prescribed.

      d) As for the last 2 points, there is plenty already happening regarding these issues. Like I've said I've lived in the region for 10 years and the whole place is as immaculate as fuck. Further, it's not as if there isn't already massive Govt regulation and heavy fines in place for people/companies who do make a mess. And as for the last one on the list, well they've already got the best gadgets money can buy and they already know whats going on.

      I hate to say this, but the whole thing seems like a way to keep academics in their jobs and considering it's the same academics jumping up and down about it, I think its pretty obvious they're money grab campaign has really worked out for them. What is really sad is that the reef is dying but the truth is money won't solve that. Yet the Govt needs to save face and therefore they're going to throw money at it regardless.

    8. Re: Horrendous headline by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      What does land management have to do with the ocean?

      Folks, surely we've spotted a troll...

    9. Re:Horrendous headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adani are proposing a coal mine hundreds of miles from the reef. It's coal. The greenies hate it. So you need to have large charismatic megafauna involved in the argument to mislead the world into a frenzy of feel-goodiness outrage. There's absolutely no threat to the reef specific to Andani's proposal. Every other coal mine in existence offers the same threats.

    10. Re:Horrendous headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can back your observations and thesis with about 40 years of experience. You are spot on. It is political rubbish and a total waste of money that would be better spent on ice cream.

    11. Re:Horrendous headline by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Is fertilizers even the problem here? What does land management have to do with the ocean?

      Corals are sensitive to changing environments. Changing temperature is a problem. Changing acidity is a problem. Changing pollution is a problem. Changing light is a problem. Water murkiness is a problem. Phosphates are a problem.

      Actually my favourite one: Dumping perfectly clean water on them: HUGE problem.

      Isn't this just feel-good stuff?

      When the source of the problem ultimately comes back to "people" then raising awareness of said "people" isn't so much feel good, but rather actually addressing the root cause. At best, people change their practices to help contribute to the programs the government is already undertaking. At worst... well we could vote Trump and with it roll back all environmental protections, cut entire departments doing sciency stuff, and just screw things up even more than they already are.

      Do not underestimate the power of people, not for government policies, not for small engineering projects.

    12. Re:Horrendous headline by vivian · · Score: 1

      The Adani project offers a threat to revenue.

      The Australian tax payer is being asked to subsidise the project with a huge proposed $1b tax payer funded loan.
      a huge port and rail line for Adani, with the promise that the coal revenue will pay it back - but coal is dying. its likely the adani project will never actually make enough money to pay for the cost of the infrastructure investment.
      India, the supposed market for the coal, is decreasing coal usage, preferring to go the nuclear / solar route.
      The whole project is a huge white elephant.

      Besides all that, the company is already facing a $600m fraud investigation in it's home country, India, and there are also tax evasion investigations under way in Australia in relation to it's British Virgin Islands tax haven links.

      Oh, and the fact is, having a major port and resulting pollution and risk of spillage on the reef does pose a risk that other coal mones do not. I think it's the project that no voting Australians actually want, but for some reason the LNP is still trying to force on us.

      In short, the project stinks and has that smelly whiff of backhanders and corruption, if you ask me.
      We don't need it.

      Our tourism and fishing industries do need the reef.

  2. Typical welfare state;payment for failing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Har Har... I snorkeled and scuba dived on the GBR.. Best place in the world except for the humans. Ningaloo reef is pretty nice too.

    Lobe of liver for sale! Price: Australian citizenship

    1. Re:Typical welfare state;payment for failing. by Zaelath · · Score: 1

      I was at Green Island 15 years ago, and 2 months ago, the place is a desolate wasteland now compared to the first time.

  3. continued by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

    A spokesman for the reef said the infusion of cash was most welcome and would help local coral diversify into new markets. GBRF closed up 11% on the day at $36.52, a new 52-week high.

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  4. Pre election spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Reality is, the reef goes through ups and downs. You can't control the whole reef like a theme park, there will always be dead zones and regenerating zones. It's way to big to control. Admittedly controlling over use of fertilizer by farmers is a good start.

    1. Re:Pre election spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Reality is, you're a fucking moron. The reef is going to not come back because the conditions are not going to get better, they're going to continue getting worse in surges.

    2. Re:Pre election spin by quantaman · · Score: 2

      Reality is, the reef goes through ups and downs. You can't control the whole reef like a theme park, there will always be dead zones and regenerating zones. It's way to big to control.

      Yeah, life finds a way, species and ecosystems find ways to adapt to whatever we throw at them.

      Just ask the Passenger pigeon.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    3. Re:Pre election spin by nonBORG · · Score: 0

      So all the creatures/plants that go extinct are fictitious? Don't bother with your life finds a way line that is from a Hollywood movie (where most people learn about science now days of course)

      --
      You can't handle the truth! - Because I don't post left all my comments get modded down, bye bye Karma.
    4. Re:Pre election spin by BlueStrat · · Score: 0

      So all the creatures/plants that go extinct are fictitious? Don't bother with your life finds a way line that is from a Hollywood movie (where most people learn about science now days of course)

      Coral has been around for a very, very, very long time.

      Coral are among some of the oldest lifeforms on the planet alive today. It has survived environmental extremes far greater than anything humans have been around for.

      Coral adapts to rapid changes such as temperature or chemistry in just this way; There is a large die-off and then it adapts and comes back. It has done so for millions of years. It will likely still be doing so after humans are long gone.

      Hey, it's great that Australia is taking action on things like fertilizer run-off. That affects far more than just the coral reefs in the ocean. It's just that many people portray coral die-offs as "OMG!! all the coral will die and be gone foreverrrr!!" and that simply is not true. If humans succeed in destroying the environment enough to truly kill all the coral, pretty much everything else will already be dead.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    5. Re:Pre election spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If humans succeed in destroying the environment enough to truly kill all the coral, pretty much everything else will already be dead.

      If? Try When. At the current pace, it's pretty much inevitable.

      But perhaps it won't extinctify the entire planet. We might get lucky.

    6. Re:Pre election spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very good, profanity wins every time.

      Some humans have an over inflated view of what control they can exert on the planet. Do you think $5B would make a difference to the Barrier Reef? $10B maybe? Even if the money was available, it won't make much difference there is no infrastructure to do that with. You can watch all the feel good videos you want about crown of thorns eradication etc... There are some people who think this starfish is a normal event. Bleaching, really?

      Personally, I worry about the garbage that is being swilled around the oceans. That is something we should do something about before it overwhelms us NOW.

    7. Re:Pre election spin by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      No, coral as a whole is not going to go extinct. But some species will (some already have) - many others will not be able to adapt rapidly enough, given the current pace of change. In time, once the climate settles down, the survivors will doubtless adapt to the new norms and new reefs will flourish.

      But on more human timescales, it seems all but certain we'll lose most of a major World Heritage site and one of the Seven Natural Wonders of the world. We lost 27% of it in 2016, and we're set to lose up to another third after 2017. I took my kids diving there last year, while there was still something left worth seeing, and the deterioration I've personally witnessed since the 80s and 90s was heartbreaking.

      The real crime is that the Australian Government has taken this long to summon even this level of action. Agricultural runoff has been a problem for decades, but the Government has consistently underfunded efforts to improve this, censored UNESCO reports describing the Reef's vulnerability, lobbied hard to avoid an Endangered listing, and both political parties have given every support for major new dredging and coal-handling developments at Abbott Point that will certainly further worsen water quality on the nearby Reef.

      Even if you view the Reef merely as a valuable national asset, this negligence will cost us all.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    8. Re:Pre election spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh.

    9. Re:Pre election spin by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      No, coral as a whole is not going to go extinct. But some species will (some already have [thenewslens.com]) - many others will not be able to adapt rapidly enough, given the current pace of change.

      Specific, individual coral species come & go in the normal course of things. It's how they adapt. There are countless numbers of individual species of coral, many found in only one location. When conditions such as average water temperatures, pH, salinity, etc, etc change, old species die and new species emerge. This cycle has been going on for millions of years through changes more extreme and rapid than anything projected for the next 100-200 years.

      But on more human timescales, it seems all but certain we'll lose most of a major World Heritage site and one of the Seven Natural Wonders of the world. We lost 27% of it in 2016, and we're set to lose up to another third after 2017. I took my kids diving there last year, while there was still something left worth seeing, and the deterioration I've personally witnessed since the 80s and 90s was heartbreaking.

      Look, I get it. I grew up in Florida and did my share of scuba diving as well. Trust nature. Coral grows back over the old coral. That's how coral builds reefs. It happens a lot and it doesn't take that long for another layer of living coral to form over the old. Coral and barnacles are a lot alike. If you've ever kept a boat in salt water you know how fast barnacles grow. Coral grows just as fast. The GBR may not be at it's prettiest for a couple seasons, but it will be back.

      And what you describe of the government's choices of actions and inactions is horrible. Governments, regardless of type, are all horrible at just about everything they do because they are all composed of people who wanted to be in government, and it's why we should only allow a government to do the very minimum we must.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    10. Re:Pre election spin by Namarrgon · · Score: 0

      you know how fast barnacles grow. Coral grows just as fast.

      Do you have a citation for that? What I've seen is that barnacles grow faster than a lot of things, up to a millimeter every day, whereas larger corals might take an entire year to grow 20mm.

      And that assumes that conditions are OK for the corals to grow at all. Considering the rate of warming we're seeing, and that experts are saying bleaching events (like the 2016 event that killed 90% of the Reef's northern third) are likely to be a regular occurrence going forward, your confidence that they'll "just grow back" seems unwarranted. Certainly Australia's own reef scientists do not share your optimism.

      it's why we should only allow a government to do the very minimum we must

      I was hoping to keep politics out of this discussion, but I'd have to say that the Government "doing the very minimum" is a pretty large part of what let the Reef get into this state in the first place.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    11. Re:Pre election spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's the thing though - heat is killing the reef at a rate of 25%/year. FIFTY - FIVE ZERO - 50% percent of the reef has died in the last two years:

      https://news.slashdot.org/stor...

      The way percentages work, this means the reef will be 25% of its 2016 size 2 years from now. $300M isn't going to fix the fundamental problem - "the water is too hot for this lifeform".

      Sure - you can try to bio-engineer some heat-tolerant... [everything that lives there] ...but it ain't gonna happen before the coral is *gone*. $300M isn't going to fix it. The water is too hot.

      Its not a normal event when HALF the population of anything dies w/in a two-year period.

  5. Seriously guys by Verloc · · Score: 1

    Has nobody thought this through? What's a reef going to do with 379 million dollars? At least give it to somebody who could do some good with it; the reef has zero fiscal responsibility.

    1. Re:Seriously guys by quantaman · · Score: 2

      Has nobody thought this through? What's a reef going to do with 379 million dollars?

      Invest in SpongeBob SquarePants lunchboxes?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    2. Re:Seriously guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least our money is plastic, so it can survive being underwater

    3. Re:Seriously guys by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      US money is plenty rugged. It's mostly cotton fiber. I have inadvertently run currency through the washing machine. It always comes out intact, often even cleaner.

    4. Re:Seriously guys by maglor_83 · · Score: 1

      Neither does the government.

  6. Acidification and warming waters by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Exactly how is giving money for direct efforts going to help in any way at all? You can't remove acid and cool down the water with money.

    --
    Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    1. Re:Acidification and warming waters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sure you can. Just buy 379mil of baking soda and spread it around.

    2. Re:Acidification and warming waters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is this is a fucking ocean. Anything you do to try and help it will just be carried off with the currents and more bad water will be brought in its place., there isnt a whole lot you are going to be able to do to fix this period, other than maybe using the money for policing to make sure humans aren't more directly impacting the reefs by things like dragging anchors though them or harvesting the coral for aquarium use.

    3. Re:Acidification and warming waters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The money is to paint the dead coral to retain the natural beauty.

    4. Re:Acidification and warming waters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would rather spend a percent of that on acids and destroy the reefs. We dont need them.

    5. Re:Acidification and warming waters by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

      Well if you RTFA...

      The funding includes:

      A$201 million to improve water quality through reducing fertilizer use and adapting new technologies and land management practices
      A$100 million for science research to restore the reef and boost its resilience
      A$58 million to fight the coral-eating crown-of-thorns starfish
      A$45 million for sea country management, coastal clean-up days and to raise awareness
      A$40 million to enhance reef health monitoring

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    6. Re:Acidification and warming waters by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and none of that would help because it all starts from the acidification and warming happening at far larger scales than just the reef.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    7. Re:Acidification and warming waters by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      Feel free to email them and tell them they are fucking stupid and wasting a lot of money. After all, you're the expert here, right?

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    8. Re:Acidification and warming waters by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      I wonder if it would just be cheaper to genetically modify the coral to handle the temperature and acidification than to pour a lot of money into other approaches that may not have much chance at success.

    9. Re:Acidification and warming waters by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      No, because it's not just the coral. eg it's also about the algae that they're co-habiting with. The coral and the algae get a long fine until the water warms. Then the algae they've partnered with grows out of control and turns against the coral. Fish species are also affected by the change in algae proportions and different kinds of algae become rampant.

      Reefs are very complex and problems cannot be solved in isolation, and definitely not in localized prodding.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    10. Re:Acidification and warming waters by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      One thing I have noticed is that 1) you are well indoctrinated in the latest nonsense. 2) You are a really stupid person and 3) very rude. A major reason the reefs are dying is due to local pollution. It isn't all caused by climate change. Being stupid and rude is no way to go through life.

    11. Re:Acidification and warming waters by niittyniemi · · Score: 1

      Exactly how is giving money for direct efforts going to help in any way at all?

      How's it going to help? It's going to help Mr.Turnbull get re-elected along with his interesting ideas about how Australian law trumps mathematical law, of course.

      Actually, I don't think it will help him in that regard. I suspect this is just some largesse for 'mates' before he gets booted out of office.

      When I was hitchhiking in Queensland for a few months over 30 years ago, corruption was rife within the state government and pretty much on open display with a streak of shit named Joh Bjelke-Petersen perched at the top of the pile. In that respect, I doubt if things have changed much. Although 'Uncle Joh' is well dead, I'm sure his 'inheritance' lives on.

      Despite that, tropical Queensland, on and next to the reef (ie. Rockhampton & north), was a pretty good place to be for a young man. That was a time before tourism had really taken off but there were some ominous signs. I wouldn't want to go back now as I'd probably just end up seriously depressed about what it's turned in to.

      --
      The Machine stops.
    12. Re:Acidification and warming waters by Namarrgon · · Score: 2

      The scientists who have most studied the Reef work for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, and these are what they list as primary threats to the reef. Warming is far from the only problem (and acidification is a fair ways down the list) - agricultural runoff has been a problem for years, and the stress from that is aggravating the stress from warming. The other threats are a much bigger issue for the southern third of the reef, where the water remains relatively cool.

      Additionally, the science research includes efforts to identify and nurture coral species that are more resistant to warming waters and acidification. It may be too late to preserve the bulk of the Reef in its current form, but we may be able to lay the groundwork to speed any future recovery.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    13. Re:Acidification and warming waters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We know that acidification and warmth is ONE of the causes of the die off (the bleaching event). Its also the one that the Australian government can't do anything about.

      Also contributing to the die off:
      Invasive crown of thorns starfish which eat coral
      Fertilizer run off further creating a local spike in poor water quality
      junk in the water, discarded by people in Australia, boats that leak, etc.

      So; the coral is dying, but life is very adaptive, and not all coral everywhere is dying- but the stuff in the great barrier reef is dying now, and fast. So you spend money to help staunch the bleeding (get rid of the starfish, fertilizer run off, and junk), and you spend money on seeing if there is something you can do to allow it to survive until it adapts.

      Bleaching does not kill coral in and of itself, but it does make it more vulnerable, so removing things that could enterprise on that vulnerability is a good idea!

      Bleaching is the coral ejecting algae from its interior because it is no longer helping the coral survive. In theory if you can find a more robust algae, that is also compatible with the coral, you could grow it in a bio-reactor and go on a painting trip to let the coral recover- but only if its still alive when you figure out what else you could introduce.

    14. Re:Acidification and warming waters by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and none of that would help because it all starts from the acidification and warming happening at far larger scales than just the reef.

      You may not realise this but there's more than one problem affecting the reef. For instance:

      - Fertilizer runoff and silt. You know the thing they are spending $200million on.
      - Crown of Thorns infestation. You know the thing they are spending $58million on.

      Ocean acidification and global warming are already covered under other programs, and it can't hurt to study if species can be resilient to those as well. You know the thing they are spending $100 million on.

      But I'm sure you dear Slashdotter know more about this than the largest government department in the world backed by the largest research instituted solely dedicated to studying the reef, the Australian GBRMPA. I'm sure you know more about this topic than the 200 employees of that department that have made it their life's work.

    15. Re:Acidification and warming waters by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      Ocean acidification and global warming are already covered under other programs

      Name them. Meanwhile, here's something for your perusal: https://www.smh.com.au/politic... "And in a report last week, the independent Climate Change Authority recommended against Australian companies using international credits to meet domestic obligations, arguing it would slow down our transition to a lower-carbon economy. It cited a submission from energy giant AGL stating such a scheme would "effectively defer Australia's own decarbonisation"."

      I'm sure you know more about this topic than the 200 employees of that department that have made it their life's work.

      Show me where I doubted the department's credentials on the reef? I'm talking about the allocation of money and targetting of policy, not the reef science.

      Idiot.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    16. Re:Acidification and warming waters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem - Water too hot (https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/04/19/2245211/since-2016-half-of-all-coral-in-the-great-barrier-reef-has-died).

      Answer:
      A$201 million to improve water quality through reducing fertilizer use and adapting new technologies and land management practices
      A$100 million for science research to restore the reef and boost its resilience
      A$58 million to fight the coral-eating crown-of-thorns starfish
      A$45 million for sea country management, coastal clean-up days and to raise awareness
      A$40 million to enhance reef health monitoring

      Tell me which of those options makes the water colder.

    17. Re:Acidification and warming waters by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Name them.

      Google them. There's an entire federal department set up for it.
      Nice anecdote by the way. I have an anecdote of my own spending lots of my employers money to improve efficiency, reduce sulphur emissions from our facilities, reduce carbon footprints.

      Show me where I doubted the department's credentials on the reef?

      And I quote: Yeah, and none of that would help

      I'm talking about the allocation of money and targeting of policy, not the reef science.

      Why don't you start at the GBRMPA's website and read a bit of the science before you crticise where the money is being targeted.

      Idiot

      Don't be harsh on yourself. Just sign off your post like a normal person.

      TheGarbz.

    18. Re:Acidification and warming waters by Bartles · · Score: 0

      The scientists who have most studied the Reef work for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

      Let me guess. They want more money and authority for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to solve all the problems they were paid to research by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

  7. Re:Acidification and warming waters PLUS poison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They get more attention from climatologists, but are actually not nearly as significant as the thousands of snorkelers who put on sunscreen that contains a virulent coral-killing substance. Approximately 5,000 metric tons of this poison is applied by these swimmers each year that mostly washes off. It has disastrous consequences and kills whatever coral it touches.

      Part of this money would be used, hopefully, to arrange a ban on conventional sunscreen and to make available a non-toxic substitute to the thousands of tourists who snorkel, so that people could still appreciate the reef, the many people making their livelihood delivering them would not be impoverished, and the coral would get a break from 5,000 metric tons of poison dropped on top of it annually.
        REF: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080129-sunscreen-coral.html

  8. Acid washed jeans by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    Many people don't know that so-called acid washed jeans are often made by washing them with an abbrasive like pummice. There are sections of new mexico where they have removed entire hills to sell to the Acid washed jean market. They become dust bowls and rutted lands.

    They could dig up this reef and have a near infinite supply for the acid wash jean market.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  9. waste of money by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    More of that should go into AE, along with putting up SAFE nuke power around the nation. RIght now, they are too heavily based on Coal. Loads of CO2 being pumped out there. OTOH, if they will stop adding coal plants and start replacing them wind wind, solar, geo-thermal, and nukes they could probably save the reef.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:waste of money by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      $379 towards nuclear power would pay for (part of) the environmental impact litigation for one plant. In other words, it would all go to lawyers.

      They already get enough.

    2. Re:waste of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agricultural runoff is a much bigger problem for the reef than global warming. No amount of Australian Solar and nukes will stop Americans warming the planet.

    3. Re:waste of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget nuclear: it has precisely zero chance of getting off the ground in Australia, particularly not in time to make any appreciable difference to emissions on the sort of timescales the world needs.

      As for renewables... let's look at what the current mob are doing:

      - actively pressuring power companies to keep coal-fired power plants open at the same time that market forces are pushing said companies to move toward renewables.
      - openly and actively campaigning for the Adani coal mine in Queensland, including provisions for a coal export terminal that has a high chance of directly impacting the reef.
      - doing their best to encourage businesses to exploit lower-quality brown-coal resources in the LaTrobe valley that could otherwise be left dormant after the closure of the Hazelwood power plant (including the brain-dead idea of burning it to manufacture H2 to export to Japan).

      Basically our government are a bunch of muppets dancing to the tune of the coal industry. Any extra funding for the reef is window dressing, pure and simple.

    4. Re:waste of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you blame everybody except yourself.
      The Great Barrier is dying mostly due to heat and CO2 (acidity). Just part of the $500M will be used for the runoff since that is not the prime issue.
      But, Dude, you spread FUD/lies and do not care about anybody except yourselves.
      China continues to add more coal plants and even with the worst measurement, china is 1/3 of the global CO2, even though they are less than 1/6 of the population. And you assholes keep building more coal electrical plants in your nation and around the world while growing your CO2 emissions faster than anybody.
      You will be the ones to be blamed for killing our reef.

    5. Re:waste of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean if they do what they are already doing? Where are Australia's new coal plants? They also have the biggest battery in the world

    6. Re:waste of money by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      But, Dude, you spread FUD/lies and do not care about anybody except yourselves.

      Let's see who is spreading FUD/lies...

      China continues to add more coal plants and even with the worst measurement, china is 1/3 of the global CO2, even though they are less than 1/6 of the population.

      China is less than 1/3 and more than 1/6, but lets not let tiny errors get in the way of your main point.
      America is 1/7 of the global CO2, even though they are 1/22 of the population. IE much much worse.

      And you assholes keep building more coal electrical plants in your nation and around the world while growing your CO2 emissions faster than anybody.

      Where is Australia building coal plants? They do sell coal though, but most is high quality.

    7. Re:waste of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pigs arse it is, Agricultural runoff has a tiny effect compared to the warm spells it has experienced or the starfish, both of which do a 1000 fold more damage. Runoff is damaging but the other too will sign the reefs death certificate long before the runoff gets a chance to have a significant impact.

    8. Re:waste of money by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Cool, that'll address global warming, but just how will it stop water quality related coral bleaching events?

    9. Re:waste of money by Bartles · · Score: 0

      How is 1/7th worse than 1/3rd? Ultimately the environment is impacted by total CO2, not the efficiency and population of various shades of people.

    10. Re:waste of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because if you want to have the biggest effect you need to take into account per capita production as without imposing insane costs on the population you can only reduce the per capita by so much. The US has by far the greatest space to move without adversely affecting the population or growth. That doesn't excuse China, but for population the US is more than double the output of china.

    11. Re:waste of money by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      Go by population, or do you just assume China will be 4x as efficient as America? Or are you just giving America a free pass because it's a smaller country?
      America's 15% of CO2 with only 4% of the population is much worse than China.

    12. Re:waste of money by Bartles · · Score: 0

      Is it? Have you even looked at the numbers? China passed the US in CO2 emissions more than a decade ago. They produce almost twice as much CO2 as the US. Also efficiency doesnt mean what you think it means. We produce about 5 times as much per ton of CO2 emitted than China. China produces about 30% of the world's CO2 and the US produces about 15%. So yes, China produces less CO2 per capita, but that is only because they are inefficient and wasteful. Per capita production of CO2 is really a shitty way of looking at the situation. The goal of anyone who solely looks at that number, is to limit per capita production, which really means they just want to handicap the 1st world and let the 3rd world pollute.

    13. Re:waste of money by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      Have you even thought about it even a tiny bit? A Chinese person should be 4 times as efficient as an American? Have a house 1/4 the size, drive 1/4 of a car, eat 1/4 of the food, use 1/4 the electricity, buy 1/4 of the junk (that one they can do already).

      China produces twice the CO2 as America because it's a 4x bigger country who is twice as efficient as you.

      Anyone who ignores the number of people really just means they want to allow the 1st world countries a free pass while stopping other countries from becoming exactly like them.

    14. Re:waste of money by Bartles · · Score: 0

      Like I said. China produces about 5 times less for every ton of CO2 emitted than the US. That is not 4 times more efficient. That is 1/5th as efficient.

    15. Re:waste of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL if America is 5 times as efficient they why do they pollute the worst in the world per capita?
      You think America produces 5 times more efficiently than China? Then why do they have such a big trade defecit?
      You aren't ever remotely realistic.

    16. Re:waste of money by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      If you wan't your trolls to be taken seriously as actual arguments try English. "5 times less" is just a bunch of words strung together with no meaning in this context.
      Work out what you mean, find the tiniest bit of evidence to support your absurdity, and try again.

      You expect a country with over a billion more people to produce the same CO2 as America. You aren't even remotely serious.

    17. Re:waste of money by Bartles · · Score: 0

      No, I don't expect them to produce less CO2. But if they are going to emit twice as much CO2 their GDP should be twice that of the US. It is far less than that, there for they are less efficient. In other words, since you seem to need them, they produce far less per ton of CO2 than the US does.

    18. Re:waste of money by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      So show some numbers, what do they produce and what does the US produce. And what about all the other things that I mentioned before. You think people don't make any CO2, it's all industry? GDP isn't' all that relevant even if it was a decent measure of production (which it isn't).That's completely naive.
      American apologists often are though, no surprises there.

    19. Re:waste of money by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      No, I don't expect them to produce less CO2. But if they are going to emit twice as much CO2 their GDP should be twice that of the US.

      Why?

    20. Re:waste of money by Bartles · · Score: 0

      Because it's the same thing as conserving energy to limit CO2 emissions. The whole idea is to do more with less, not less with more.

    21. Re:waste of money by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      But why? What has GDP, a measure of dollars, have to do with CO2?
      You are still expecting a country with a bigger economy, who produce more things and who have 4 times the population to produce an equivalent amount of CO2 as a rich country based on services who import quite a lot of their stuff from the country you are complaining about...

    22. Re:waste of money by Bartles · · Score: 0

      GDP is gross domestic PRODUCT. Everything that is produced by an economy emits CO2 in it's production. Everything. A Nation can ineffiecently produce, and not have much to show for it's emissions, or it can efficiently produce and have lots to show for it's emissions. Exclusively looking at emissions and population is a sign that the observer really just wants people to produce less. Or in most instances, they just want the US to produce less. Or even the EU, which is more efficient than the US but at substantially higher cost.

    23. Re:waste of money by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1
      If I make a sandwich in San Francisco, how much GDP, how about the same sandwich in Houston, how much GDP? What about the exact same sandwich in China, how much GDP? They all make the same CO2. What you are claiming is nonsense.
      I sing you a song and you pay me $1000. Zero CO2 $1000. I sing the same song in China for $1 still zero CO2. vastly different GDP. Exclusively looking at GDP is a sign that the person doesn't understand what GDP is. It's the dollar value of economic activity.

      Or even the EU, which is more efficient than the US but at substantially higher cost.

      This is just gibberish, it's clear you don't know what you are talking about.

    24. Re:waste of money by Bartles · · Score: 0

      Do they all make the same CO2? The sandwich in China was probably made with US wheat, because they aren't efficient enough to produce all their own food.

    25. Re:waste of money by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      LOL, it's clear you are just trolling or woefully ill-informed.

    26. Re:waste of money by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1
      Lets see what the CIA factbook says shall we.

      China
      Agriculture - products:
      world leader in gross value of agricultural output; rice, wheat, potatoes, corn, tobacco, peanuts, tea, apples, cotton, pork, mutton, eggs; fish, shrimp

    27. Re:waste of money by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      That's the best you could do?
      You failed to discuss any of the points raised and instead just showed you ignorance.

      What's even funnier is that you did kind of raise another point. But it isn't what you hoped for. America has a rather large trade deficit with China. So if you want to add in trade. It just makes America's position even weaker and their high levels of pollution even worse.

    28. Re: waste of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey cocksucker.

      You are not even close to true. You Chinese import a lot of your food.

    29. Re: waste of money by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      America imports a lot of food too. Did you have a point?
      Maybe our unnamed troll (WindBourne) cold get a job at the CIA and update their factbook?
      Na, probably not, CIA likes to lie, but they prefer their liars to be at least a bit believable.
      Back to trolling for you.

  10. Might be too little, too late. by Streetlight · · Score: 1

    My understanding is that most of the problem with the Great Barrier Reef is due to global warming. Another couple of degrees C increase in average global temperature, we'll have a runaway situation in environmental destruction and these expenditures won't be of much use solving the problem. Putting this cash into reducing the use of carbon fuel by converting to renewable electricity generation might be a better use.

    --
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
    1. Re:Might be too little, too late. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $379 even if millions will have no effect on the CO2 levels. Australia could go back to living in caves and it wouldn't make any difference. America is where the CO2 is at.

    2. Re:Might be too little, too late. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We export quite a lot of the stuff, and there is a *lot* more under the ground here that could follow.

      We could make a difference by scaling back our exports, replacing our coal-fired power plants and agreeing not to open up any new coal mines.

      Unfortunately our government is dead-set on doing the opposite: digging up as much of the stuff as humanly possible, both for use here (see their efforts to keep the Liddel and Hazelwood power plants open) and export (eg the proposed Adani coal mine in Queensland).

    3. Re:Might be too little, too late. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Australia is not the only supplier, all cutting Australian production of coal would do is result in the other much dirtier products from other countries ramping up production thus a hugely negative impact not positive. If you want to fix the problem you need to focus on converting countries like the US, India, China et al to stop the pollution and funding developing nations so they don't need to use coal. Amusingly the Adani project would probably decrease pollution not increase it, but sadly greenies in this country have no fucking clue and think somehow Australia lives in a bubble from the rest of the world.

  11. If I read this right my half dead body by Snotnose · · Score: 1

    gets some money. I'm 60 y/o, and to be honest, getting old sucks.

    If I don't read this right I claim ageism and my lawyer will get us some money.

    / sometimes sad to be an American
    // 9 times out of 10 it happens when legal issues arise
    /// recent presidential elections haven't helped

  12. Drop on the bucket but thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doing better than many of the world's other major problems so that's something I guess!

  13. late by reedvirginiamail · · Score: 1

    too late!!!

  14. Quick, close the barn door! by jensend · · Score: 1

    The horses have bolted!

  15. Too little, too late. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BUT, It's gonna be great for the economy the rich are gonna get so much richer! Rich enough to survive the raging hordes of poor though?

  16. Not all problems can be solved... by The123king · · Score: 1

    Not all problems can be solved by throwing money at them. This is one of them

    --
    If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
    1. Re:Not all problems can be solved... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true. Search up 'CRISPR Coral'.

  17. Is the Great Barrier Reef still a thing? by k2r · · Score: 1

    I thought Australia decided that they'd rather want a useful coal mine instead of a useless pile of corals?

  18. red necks by bigtreeman · · Score: 1

    read between the lines -
    $200M is being given to red neck farmers

    --
    Go well
  19. Well thatll fix EVERYTHING! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Magic money makes coral grow and live bloom in dead water? Amazeballs!

  20. Marine Dead Zones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look up "Marine Dead Zones" on Google.

    Literally every major river system has a dead zone at it's mouth now. The key factor is a large population of humans, living or farming, upstream. Fertilizer, untreated sewage, and silt from erosion all contributes to algae blooms, which deplete the water of most if it's oxygen. Then every higher form of life dies or flees, leaving only jellyfish and a few other rare invertebrate species able to survive the suffocating conditions.

    Africa, Asia, Europe, South America, North America, Australia, the problem is everywhere. The Mississippi and the Danube are just a couple of better-known examples. Nor are the dead zones small, they can extend for hundreds of square kilometers.

  21. You clearly haven't thought this through by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

    So you will be happier when they are just like America? When they are as 'efficient' as you, when they get to be as rich as you?
    If they become identical to you, they will have 4x the population, 4x the money, 4x the economy, 4x the consumption and guess what, also 4x the CO2. You think that is a good thing for the planet?