Great Barrier Reef Gets $379 Million Boost After Coral Dies Off (bloomberg.com) 104
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.
Re:Horrendous headline (Score:5, Informative)
"$379 million boost" doesn't mean anything by itself.
TFA actually lists projects that get funded.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (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
Re: (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 p
Re: (Score:2)
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 [wikipedia.org], which in turn will heavily damage ecosystems through hypoxia
Re:Horrendous headline (Score:5, 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.
Re: Horrendous headline (Score:2)
What does land management have to do with the ocean?
Folks, surely we've spotted a troll...
Re: (Score:2)
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 the
Re: (Score:2)
I was at Green Island 15 years ago, and 2 months ago, the place is a desolate wasteland now compared to the first time.
continued (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:1)
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 th
Re: (Score:2)
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. 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 ano
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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
Seriously guys (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Has nobody thought this through? What's a reef going to do with 379 million dollars?
Invest in SpongeBob SquarePants lunchboxes?
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither does the government.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The scientists who have most studied the Reef work for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, and these [gbrmpa.gov.au] 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 res
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reefs are very complex and problems cannot be solved in isolation, and definitely not in localized prodding.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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... [smh.com.au] "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 t
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Acid washed jeans (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 a
waste of money (Score:2)
Re: (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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:1)
America's 15% of CO2 with only 4% of the population is much worse than China.
Re: (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
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:1)
American apologists often are though, no surprises there.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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,
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
You clearly haven't thought this through (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Cool, that'll address global warming, but just how will it stop water quality related coral bleaching events?
Might be too little, too late. (Score:2)
If I read this right my half dead body (Score:2)
If I don't read this right I claim ageism and my lawyer will get us some money.
/ sometimes sad to be an American
late (Score:1)
Quick, close the barn door! (Score:2)
The horses have bolted!
Not all problems can be solved... (Score:2)
Is the Great Barrier Reef still a thing? (Score:2)
I thought Australia decided that they'd rather want a useful coal mine instead of a useless pile of corals?
red necks (Score:2)
read between the lines -
$200M is being given to red neck farmers