Australia's Great Barrier Reef doomed...

[Woodstock]

This is very saddening!!!

http://www.wral.com/news/2865335/detail.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biologists: Great Barrier Reef Doomed
Report Says Ocean Warming Too Fast

POSTED: 12:43 p.m. EST February 22, 2004

SYDNEY, Australia -- Marine biologists say Australia's Great Barrier Reef is doomed.

A new report from Queensland University's Center for Marine Studies says the Pacific Ocean is getting too warm, too fast. Experts say the world's largest chain of living coral will be mostly dead by 2050.

The reef stretches 1,200 miles along the northeastern Australia coast, and is one of the country's biggest tourist attractions.


Studies have found that with a rise in water temperature of less than 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, coral loses its vibrant colors. Analysts have predicted that water temperature will rise nearly 11 degrees this century.

The conservative government of Prime Minister John Howard has made attempts to limit damage to the reef.

A government spokesman calls the report "a good contribution to debate about the reef from a constructive organization."

Australia, along with the United States and Russia, has refused to sign the Kyoto treaty on global warming.

[tankgirl]

Hi Woodstock,
That's the worst news we could ever get!

[Witfull]

very depressing!

[cheeks69]

Not surprised at all and I think it's only the beginning !!

[SunnyX]

[Montanareefer]

Bummer!

[Dingo]

Naw. The composition of the reef may change, but it will not die out. Corals have been around since the beginning of life on earth, and it will take more than a mere 2 degree temperature change to kill them all off.

Case in point, my tank changes by more than 2 degrees every single day.

Now have a Pall Mall and relax.

[reefshadow]

I hope that this isn't true and I would love to see the studies that have lead to this conclusion.

Currently there is not a concrete consensus among the scientific community on whether "global warming" is even really occuring and, if it is, whether the problem is man made or not. What is certain and proven is that global climate undergoes periodic dramatic changes that have nothing to do with humans, and we are only about 10,000 years out of the last ice age. We have only been recording and monitoring climate worldwide for less than 100 years.

I'm definately NOT saying that our industrial activities have no effect on our one and only Earth, and it is completely probable that we are undergoing a climate change due to our activities. I do think that we need to evaluate and effect realistic changes with our industrial/environmental policies wordwide.

As far as the Kyoto treaty goes, imo that was a totally bogus deal. It gave "developing" countries carte blanche on emissions and industrial pollution, and many of these countries are leading cotributers to the very problems that are causing world pollution. Look at all the industry in China, Korea, India, Taiwan, and Mexico that would have gone unregulated while those in the US, Russia, and Australia suffered and lost jobs because of this unfair policy.

This is a very interesting and necessary debate IMO, because this is the only Earth we have, and if we are effecting these changes we need to take action now. Sometimes though I feel like these "facts" are being spoon fed to us without anyone questioning where this information is coming from.

I guess only time will tell, but environmentalism really starts at home and there are simple steps that everyone can take to help the situation, that cost nothing.

Personally, I have hope for the future.

[Tosh_Auer]

Yeah even in the last few years i hvae notived the decline in the amount and colour range of the corals on the reefs around where i live and its very upsetting to think that my children wont be able to enjoy what i have been able to enjoy. I hope dingo is right and taht the reef will addapt and be able to come back.

[addict]

First off, let me state that this post isn't intended to pick on reefshadow... I'm majoring in environmental economics and the stuff she was talking about is stuff that we talk about all the time... just thought I could shed a little light on the situation.

Currently there is not a concrete consensus among the scientific community on whether "global warming" is even really occuring and, if it is, whether the problem is man made or not. What is certain and proven is that global climate undergoes periodic dramatic changes that have nothing to do with humans, and we are only about 10,000 years out of the last ice age. We have only been recording and monitoring climate worldwide for less than 100 years.

You are absolutely correct in your first assertion, that there is no way to 'prove' that global warming is in fact occurring, but what most scientists now refer to is 'human-aided' global warming... meaning that while humans are not the sole cause of global warming, we should do whatever we can to prevent our contribution to it. Pollution is a tough issue to deal with... on one hand, chlorofluorocarbons, methane, CO2, etc. trap in infrared radiation (heat) which facilitates global warming, yet on the other hand particulate matter in the atmosphere actually aids in global cooling, since it blocks some of the sunlight entering the atmosphere. One odd thing, is that it was a proposed solution that we seed the atmosphere with particulate matter to help cool the earth (battling pollution with more pollution... eh?).
Also, scientists have drilled core samples from the antarctic ice sheet that they can estimate global temperatures going back thousands of years... from long before the last ice age.

As far as the Kyoto treaty goes, imo that was a totally bogus deal. It gave "developing" countries carte blanche on emissions and industrial pollution, and many of these countries are leading cotributers to the very problems that are causing world pollution. Look at all the industry in China, Korea, India, Taiwan, and Mexico that would have gone unregulated while those in the US, Russia, and Australia suffered and lost jobs because of this unfair policy.

I understand your frustration with this clause in the Kyoto treaty, but what it in fact does is give developing countries 10 more years before they must begin to come into compliance with the agreement. What is hoped to be gained by this is development of pollution control technology in the developed countries, which will then be sold to the developing countries as the technology is matured (and costs a whole lot less).
Also, the two main countries that 'should' be signed on to this treaty aren't... the U.S. and Russia. Until these two countries sign up there's almost no reason to even have the treaty.
What's unique about the Kyoto treaty, is that it sets up a system whereupon countries can sell 'emissions rights' to one another, so that global pollution is reduced. Each country is allowed a certain amount of pollution per year (the baseline is 10% below 1989 levels), and is granted rights to emit that amount of pollution. Countries that emit less than their allotted amount of pollution can sell these extra pollution rights to countries that emit 'more' pollution than they're allowed... this makes it self-policing, since a country can actually profit by cleaning up their pollution... (of course this excludes developing countries who still have a 10 year phase-in). Each year more pollution is to be reduced, and each countries allotment is adjusted accordingly. The U.S. won't sign up because we're still one of the biggest pollutors on the planet, and will be purchasing these rights from countries that don't have as large an industrial base to draw from...
Russia is really stoked about this... their industrial complex has imploded since the breakup of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s, so they stand to make a windfall selling off their emissions rights... but without the U.S. signing on to buy them, they're still patiently waiting for us to do so.
(whew... hope you got all that... ).

The biggest worry is that the change in global temperature will affect ocean currents, and that could really screw things up worldwide... were it not for the gulf stream keeping Great Britain and the upper European countries warm(er), they would probably be covered in ice within a couple years.

As a species, humans are definitely having an impact on the earth, but it still remains to be seen how much human activity is contributing to the current warming trend.

You do know that one of the biggest pollutants is CO2?... looks like we'll all have to get a permit to exhale... you'll only be allowed a certain amount of breaths per day...

[reefshadow]

oops, totally messed up my post, i'll try again

[Brucey]

Hey Dave, ReefAddict .... very interesting points of view and lots of facts and theories to mull over.

One thing that springs to my mind is that over the past few years there have been a lot of arguments about the morality of us guys keeping creatures that should live in the ocean in our homes. I even think it about myself sometimes, I have a poor starving gobi at the moment that I just can't get enough nutrition into and it bears the questions should we be bringing these guys from their natural environment into an artificial makeup of their homes .... I can see both sides of the coin. I, like 99.9 people on this site, enjoy the challange and beauty of keeping these creatures alive and thriving in our homes, given them the best conditions I can to help them thrive and populate. But I can also see the other side of the coin which states that what we can't keep alive, we shouldn't bring into LFS's and eventually into our homes. But a thread like this makes me think, well, it is in our hands to continue the evolution of these species. If their own natural environment is dwindelling (whether it be because the earth is warming at human or by natural means), we can continue their survival until that environment becomes live-able for their needs again.
Brucey

[reefshadow]

First of all, no way do I think you're picking on me! I think this is exactly the kind of informed debate we need to get anywhere with these problems.

I think my main problem with any global environmental treaty is enforcement and compliance. Granted, the US does lead the world currently in our use of fossil fuels and most of this goes toward our auto population. Yet, we already have pretty stringent industrial policies that are usually complied with and if not, enforced. Also we are seeing a growing trend toward controlling auto emissions that will hopefully spread and become mandatory in all states.

I guess what really concerns me is that I could definately see a situation in which these "developing" countries, in 10 years time, would say "oh, boo hoo, we have not got the money or resources to comply with your regulations or new technology- we just can't do it", putting the US in the position where we will have expend our money and resources to see that those countries are compliant. After all we have made ourselves very dependant on the goods and services these countries are supplying. ( a BIG problem, imo) Also these time deadlines have a way of being pushed back (and back, and back). I just think there has to be a more fair solution.

Also atmospheric pollution can be difficult to pinpoint where it is coming from and in what amounts, and has a real way of "drifting". For instance I remember the spectacular sunsets in our area a few years back and the discernable haze in the air that turned out to be dust drifting across the Pacific from the gobi desert in china. Turns out they had a huge dust/sand storm a few weeks back. Not that this really compares to man made problems, but is just by way of example. I think the economic outlay involved in figuring out who is contributing what would be huge, and who gets to pick up the tab for that,and what criteria do you use to determine who is doing what?

only been recording and monitoring climate worldwide for less than 100 years

What I really meant by this is I hear people saying all the time "Oh golly! Look at all the hurricanes! The storms! The floods! What's going on? Jeeeze, it's global warming! We're all gonna die, better put your heads between your knees and kiss your arses goodbye" I think that we have a tendency to be very reactionary and don't often think about what the media is feeding us. I think this is dangerous because it encourages a sense of hopelessness and people feel that there is nothing they can do and so they Don't Do Anything.

I still think that the best environmental policies start right at home, and everyone can really contribute. I live in an area where environmentalism is practically a religion, and so many people do what they can to help. I am also lucky enough to live in an area where more environmentally friendly forms of energy are produced. Most of Washingtons power is hydroelectric and nuclear, both with their problems, but much less damaging than fossil fuel use.

looks like we'll all have to get a permit to exhale

LOL, where can I sign up? If that's the case, the populations of China and India better start pretty quick.

Also, don't forget all the flatulence from cattle.

Really though, thanks for all the great food for thought you provided.

-Becca

[reefshadow]

That's a great post, Brucey-

It is entirely possible that we may see a time where we can contribute healthy stock of coral to help renew some of the reefs that are being damaged for whatever reason. Wouldn't that be wonderful?

[Dracunculus]

For the record, my initial reaction is like Becca's...I always look at these "doom and gloom" reports as over-reaction. Not to minimize our effect on the environment, or to downplay our species' arrogance, but the Earth has been around for a long time, and has shown amazing adaptablility when it comes to some pretty earth-shattering (pun intended) changes in the past. It will take more than humankind to wipe out life on earth in the long term. That being said, we do have an amazing capacity to "reshape" ecosystems, whether intentional or not.

In summary, I don't think that we will wind up accidentally destroying the Great Barrier Reef; however, we should be mindful of the ecologic effects of what we do, and their ramifications to our neighboring species.

David