Take Action to protect the Great Barrier Reef

[furam28]

All of us are in this hobby for our love for the ocean and its wonders. We try to recreate some of the beauty of the spectacular reef life in our own living room. But there is no denying the fact that many of the world reefs and coral species are in danger of disappearing within our own lifetimes. The Great Barrier Reef is one of the ocean's great wonders, there's nothing like it anywhere else in the world. (Recently there was another topic here on Maast about Google Street View of the GBR). The current Australian government has done very little in safeguarding the reef - and now they have opened it up to coal companies in India. I know many of us are tired of seeing petitions, and wonder if they do any good - but Avaaz has been successful in the past, mostly due to the negative media attention they bring. Please take a minute to sign the petition and share with your friends if you can:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/india_great_barrier_reef_loc/?fpla

[Bill S]

I'm one of those who does NOT blindly sign petitions, or jump on a bandwagon. So, I did a bit of research.

As is typical with organizations with a self-promoting agenda, facts are ignored in order to gain attention to themselves. As is the case with the above referenced website. Please not, this is NOT a shot at the OP, just the site the OP referenced.

The above post would make one think that coal companies in India are going to start mining coal in/on the Reef, and that the Aussies have done and are doing little to protect the reef. That doesn't appear to be the case.

Here's an opposing viewpoint. Yes, it's from the mining industry, but it points out what's being done and not done.

http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/features/let-s-dump-great-barrier-reef-debunking-dredging-m

And for all of you "sky is falling" types, here's an article about the reef (and other reefs) by a coral biologist, debunking a few myths.

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2013/11/dredging-another-bogus-threat/

http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=2219

As reef keepers, we all KNOW how fast corals grow/regenerate, under the right conditions. As Starck points out, hurricanes, cyclones, tropical storms do immense damage, yet the reefs return...

[furam28]

Glad to learn about the mining industry's view on this.

Here's a study from the National Academy of Sciences: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/great-barrier-reef-has-lost-half-its-coral-since-1985-8193783.html

Half the corals in the GBR has disappeared in the last 30 years (since 1985). Whether its due to hurricanes, or man-made causes, or both, we should be doing more to protect it, instead of lashing out against conservationists. You really think mining and shipping coal halfway across the globe is worth risking damage to the delicate ecosystem of the GBR?

There's always going to be flat-earthers and climate change deniers, especially when you have powerful industries backing them.

[Bill S]

You fell into a trap. Glad it was well set. Because you OBVIOUSLY didn't read either of Dr. Starck's articles, or the article posted. You didn't bother to revise your original post, you instead dug your heels in on your inaccurate post. Your response was EXACTLY what he predicted. And sure, you can lump me in with the "flat earth" folks if you want - that's what wackos do. Let me know when you want to compare scientific pedigrees.

Note that the article you posted indicates that HALF of the loss is from storms... And most of the rest from Crown of Thorns. Did you see Dr. Starck's article about WHY the COT Starfish populations run up, and that it's his believe that they are beneficial for the long term health of the reef?"

[furam28]

I am more interested in a civil debate based on the scientific merits of the facts presented, rather than personal attacks and gotcha traps. I did read Starcks article halfway, and it was pretty clear that the author, whatever pedigree he may have, has no respect for scientific facts. He claims to be "refuting bogus claims", yet not once in his article does he have any reference to any scientific studies to back his "facts". And then I looked him up, and guess what... He is one of the paid experts for Heartland Institute - the notorious climate change denying front group backed by some of the dirtiest industrialists in this country. In the 90s Heartland worked with Philip Morris to "question" the claims that smoking causes cancer! Talk about having an agenda.

If you are interested, here is a study by the Australian Institute of Marine Sciences: http://www.aims.gov.au/docs/media/latest-releases/-/asset_publisher/8Kfw/content/new-study-links-dredging-to-diseased-corals . Dredging is the process of digging up thousands of tons of sea bed and dumping it back nearby to make channels for passing of ships. Anyone in our hobby knows enough about corals to know that that can't be good for SPS.

[alton]

First of all one it comes to science when I went to high school I did my one year of Physical Science and I was done. What I do know is most things you read from science related articles it based upon someone’s theory versus actual fact. I remember as a teenager reading in the newspaper how scientist where forecasting the next ice age because the 60’s and 70’s where so cold. Punch ahead to 2000 and we are warming up big time because of global warming creating huge Hurricanes. Now ten years later it is now climate change and no Hurricanes. I remember how are President promised he was going to do what he could to clean up America and conserve energy, and then flew two jumbo jets down to Copenhagen to the big summit on Global Warming.
Now for the other side, we continue to dump too much fertilizer and waste into our oceans. Our population is out of control. The only way to bring everything back into check is to cut the World’s population in half in the next 50 years. (Good Luck on that one) As a country we have done a bunch in cleaning up in the last 30 years. Example: 1978 ½ ton pickup weight 4,000lbs 10 MPG 180 Hp. My 2001 ¾ ton pickup weight 6,000lbs 18 mpg 300 Hp. My sports car I had in 1982 225 Hp 16 mpg, my 2014 455 Hp 25 mpg and 30 on the highway.
As a country we are using less gas per person, but double the electricity as our parents, and 10 times more energy than my Grandparents. We now have AC units that are twice as efficient as 30 years ago but our homes went from 1,800 square feet to 3,600 sqft. When I was growing up every home was on a ¼ acre which was great having a green belt area, now they are what 10’ apart?
One more theory before I go: LEDS 50,000 Hours and last 10 years, based on theory not fact.
I love conversation keep it going!

[BBQHILLBILLY]

Thanks for the update and signed :)

[Dean]

This is a good read from Advanced Aquarist that relates some to this discussion.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/blog/a-glimmer-of-hope-for-corals-as-baby-reef-builders-cope-with-acidifying-oceans


I choose not to entertain any extremists agenda. I wonder who the most recent ice age of the 5 known (which killed almost ALL of Earth's coral reefs 10,000 years ago) would have been blamed on had we been alive at the beginning of it's occurrence? Nature will take it's course regardless of man's interventions both good or bad.

Perhaps man has had some impact on the reefs but not nearly as much as mother nature. It is all part of Earth's evolution. The reefs will continue to die out and rebuild just as they have over the last 550 million years.


Just my .02

[furam28]

Thanks Dean for sharing the article. Shane Graber posts some great articles on Advanced Aquarist. For the sake of clarification: this campaign is about building a port next to the Great Barrier Reef by dredging the sea bed. The process of dredging, and the ships passing through the reef will endanger the reef which is already in decline. So the question is, should we risk harming it for the sake of shipping coal from Australia to India?

Of course, nature will take its course, but that is never a reason for inaction. In 10,000 years there may be another ice age that will kill all the corals, or the earth may be hit by an asteroid and most of life will be gone. But that's not a reason not to try and find a cure for Ebola, or take reasonable steps towards minimizing damages to delicate ecoysystems...

That's my take on it.

[Dean]

The GBF should most definitely not be dredged and ship traffic should not be allowed through it. There are portions of our Texas Coastal Wetlands where boats are not permitted for the protection of the grass beds. I can't imagine dredging and shipping lanes would be permitted through that reef system.

[Bill S]

A few facts to aid the discussion:

1) The GBR is huge. It would stretch from the Mexico border to the Canada border.

2) It fronts about 1/2 of the coast of Queensland. The population of Queensland is about 4.7 million.

3) There are already several sizable ports behind the reef. Those include Townsville, with a depth of about 50 feet (similar to the Corpus Christi Ship Channel - CC is the 7th largest US port), and Cairns, which is a regular stopover for large cruise ships, requiring similar depths. There are a lot of others, too.

4) Abbott Point, the port in question, is already dredged to 60 feet. The channel through the reef already exists, and has existed for decades.

5) Here is the wiki page on the port: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbot_Point

[Zack]

That's insane about the size of the reef! I had no idea it was that large

[furam28]

Yup. Its the largest reef in the world, visible from outer space. In the last 30 years, it has lost half its coral cover. The latest healthcheck by the pro-coal government found the reef status to be "poor" (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28767993)

Here is a graph from Australian Government showing projected increase in shipping vessels over the next 20 years. Notice how pretty much all the increase is due to coal vessels:

http://i.imgur.com/4DXNxn7.png


You are right. Abbott point port has been around since 1984 and is a vital part of Queensland economy. The concern is the recent proposal of massive expansion (by dredging) and increase in shipping volume, entirely to support coal export. Almost all marine biologists are in consensus that the expansion risks further damage to the reef. Like in almost all issues of conservation, it depends on whether the economic benefits of the increased coal export outweighs the environmental costs of substantial damage to the world's largest reef.

[JimH]

I'll just make a few quick observations. It's not change and the reef's ability to adapt to it in general that I worry about. It is the rate of change and the reef's ability to adapt to it at the rate it is occurring. We all know that we need to change things slowly in our tanks or the coral suffer or possibly die. Unfortunately I don't know all the facts in this situation and I don't really have time to fully understand them. I do think debate is healthy and can expose aspects of the truth that may be obscure. I hope those who can actually make such decisions really understand the tradeoffs and make an ethical decision. We know that does not always happen.