[Coral-List] New York Times op-ed piece - thoughts for Phase II
Douglas Fenner
douglasfennertassi at gmail.com
Sat Jul 21 21:58:56 EDT 2012
I am sorry to hear that Roger Bradbury's paper was not accepted at
ICRS. I think this is one of the most important issues, if not THE most
important issue, we who work on coral reefs, must deal with. I thank Roger
for bringing this up in his NY Times article. I hope that his letter in
the paper will receive the wide attention it deserves, and convince a lot
of people that we are indeed looking into the abyss. I completely agree we
need to know what we're up against.
Roger's piece in the NY Times is full of generalities and statements
that are not supported by facts there, but that is the nature of newspaper
articles. I urge Roger to write a serious piece for a peer-reviewed
journal, in which the factual bases for his statements are documented. I
believe this is too important not to have a firm basis for the statements.
I argue that there is no good evidence that coral reefs won't recover
if the chronic pressures that humans are putting on them are removed. I'm
not the first to argue this. It is currently popular to say that coral
reefs can enter alternative stable states, and that transitions between
states have a hysteresis to them due to positive feedbacks, so that it
takes more to push an ecosystem back into the healthy state than it would
have taken to keep it in the healthy state in the first place. People have
pointed out many positive feedback loops that may produce such an effect.
On the other hand, very few if any situations in which human pressures have
pushed a coral reef ecosystem into another state have had the human
pressures removed. For example, the overfishing and nutrient inputs to the
reefs in Jamaica and much of the Caribbean have not been removed, and the
Diadema urchins have only begun to recover. If the pressures that produced
the phase shift are not removed, the fact that the ecosystem has not
recovered is not evidence that it would not recover if the pressures were
removed. Further, once the pressures are removed, recovery may take
significant time, there are some examples of this. Plus there are at least
a few situations in which the phase shift may indeed be stable over long
periods, one being where a ship grounding has crushed everything, another
being where a thick layer of silt several feet thick covers a reef (since
corals can't get started on silt) and another being loose rubble where wave
surge moves the rubble continually, abrading any new coral recruits.
Anyhow, in the majority of cases, I see no strong evidence that reefs
couldn't recover if humans stopped impacting reefs (and that includes
releasing greenhouse gases). I think that is good news and a cause for
optimism. For reviews with details on the phase-shift issues, see my paper
on reef fisheries, and also the paper by Dudgeon et al 2010.
On the other hand, as I re-read Roger's piece, it seems to me he's
saying that the chance that humans will stop impacting reefs is very
remote. At times, I think the same thing. Sometimes societies decide to
tackle a major problem, and solve it. Other times, society doesn't. Jarad
Diamond has a book out talking about the differences between such
societies. I'm a US citizen, and I see US society failing to fix a
variety of problems. The "drug war" has been going on for decades, and the
government is not winning it, clearly, and there is no end in sight. Just
the other day we had another stark reminder of the failure of US society to
fix it's gun problem. Many pieces have been written detailing how the
problems in the US financial system that nearly destroyed the economy in
the great recession have not been fixed. We have not fixed our healthcare
system problems. We have not fixed the greenhouse gas emission problem.
The list goes on and on. On the other hand, international action has fixed
air pollution in developed countries, plus acid rain and the ozone hole.
We can fix problems we decide to fix, and this one is fixable.
To me, saving coral reefs is a human social problem much more than a
biological problem. Most reefs would heal if we stopped abusing them.
Getting humans around the world to reduce their impacts on reefs, when
human populations continue to rise and the world economy doubles about
every 15 years or so, not only will not be easy, but will be so hard that
it is not obvious whether we will manage to do it. We know what the
solutions are, but humans who damage reefs all benefit in some way from
their actions. Cheap energy from fossil fuels that fuel economic growth,
farm incomes from farming that produces sediment and nutrient runoff, big
money from logging forests that produces runoff, food for very hungry poor
people from catching reef fish, huge numbers of recreational fishermen
having fun catching reef fish, and so on, the list is long indeed. People
who benefit from these things will not change their ways if we just
politely ask them to. If what they are doing becomes economically less
profitable than doing something else, as Ove is saying may soon happen for
fossil fuels vs renewable energy, the change can happen quite quickly
without drawn out battles. If not, we need to find ways that people can
derive their benefits without damaging the reefs. The damage is all side
effects of activities to produce other benefits, nobody sets out with the
sole purpose of damaging reefs, the damage is just a side effect of what
they do to derive benefits.
I don't know if human society around the world will make the changes
needed in time. I do know that if we don't try to get people to change, we
can seal the fate of reefs and doom them to destruction. I'm not willing
to do that. I will fight to the end, I think reefs are worth it. I don't
think the alternative is viable. Dead reefs don't produce fish, nor do
they protect shorelines. Reefs produce hundreds of billions of dollars of
ecosystem services a year, and we are spending peanuts trying to save
them. We cannot put artificial reefs over all of the area of coral reefs
of the world to produce the fish needed to feed people, the area is way way
too large. We can't armor all the coastlines protected by coral reefs,
coastlines are too long. People on atolls are already talking about how
they will be forced to move entire nations due to sea level rise and
erosion. I think we have NO choice but to fight for coral reefs every step
of the way, down to the very last ditch effort to save them. I think
diverting money to serious efforts to try to replace coral reefs will
divert desperately needed funding to save them. If your ship has a hole in
the hull, do you immediately abandon ship?? If the hole can be repaired,
you are better off saving the ship (as Captain Cook did when he hit the
Great Barrier Reef). We know how to do it!! We just have to get society
willing to do it. I'm with Ove on that. President Kennedy said, "We
choose to go to the moon, not because it is easy, but because it is
hard." We can't afford to just give up and walk away from reefs and let
them die, just because saving them is going to be hard. Most things worth
doing are not easy. I think Ove's energy and enthusiasm in getting to work
on this is fantastic.
Cheers, Doug
Dudgeon, S.R.; Aronson, R.B.; Bruno, J.F.; Precht, W.F. Phase shifts and
stable states on coral
reefs. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2010, 413, 201–216.
Fenner, D. 2012. Challenges for managing fisheries on diverse coral reefs.
Diversity 4(1): 105-160. http://www.mdpi.com/journal/diversity
My previous post on coral-list on this topic for those who haven't seen it:
Ray Bradbury, as Tom Goreau pointed out in a message on “coralreef
freeforall”, missed the boat from the start in saying that “Overfishing,
acidification, and pollution are pushing coral reefs into oblivion.” He
missed the largest single threat, global-warming produced mass coral
bleaching. There is also no mention of coral disease, probably the single
largest contributor to the decline in coral reefs in the Caribbean (which
we need to remember is an important but quite small part of the world’s
coral reefs). By “pollution” I presume he means sedimentation,
nutrification, and chemical pollution. There are a host of other damaging
factors, but these are the main ones.
In Bradbury’s defense, a close reading shows that he initially says
that reefs are “on a trajectory to collapse within a human generation”,
which is different from saying they certainly will. I’d argue that if a
human generation is 33 years, it might well take two generations. He also
shows he’s aware that not every scrap of reef will be dead at that time.
He then says that the “fact” than any one of the three factors he
says is causing reef demise could cause their death by itself (a point I
would not concede is based on science that is “compelling and unequivocal”)
logically leads to the conclusion that “there is no hope of saving the
global coral reef ecosystem.” NO hope?? Give me a break. The continued
decline of coral reefs depends on humans continuing to damage reefs the way
they have been. That is NOT an inevitable consequence of what we have done
in the past. Humans are capable of learning and changing what they do.
Bradbury says that “scientists don’t see the reefs for the corals.” I
beg to differ. In fact, we all know how severe the problem is, precisely
because there are more and more scientists who not only grasp how important
it is to find out the truth about how the world’s reefs are doing and what
the future holds for reefs, but also have figured out new ways to assess
reefs over huge areas of the world ocean. I refer in particular to papers
like the Gardner et al (2003) paper demonstrating the severity of the
decline in the Caribbean, the Bruno & Selig (2007) paper on the decline of
reefs in the Pacific, Wilkinson’s GCRMN books on the state of the reefs of
the world, the Wilkinson et al. (1999) paper reporting the loss of most of
the coral in the Indian Ocean in the 1998 bleaching event, the paper by
Paddack et al. (2009) on the decline of reef fish in the Caribbean, and the
Alvarez-Philip et al. (2009) paper showing the decline of coral reef
rugosity in the Caribbean, plus many others. My recent paper on challenges
for managing coral reef fisheries (Fenner, 2012) listed 39 references of
papers documenting the decline of coral reefs around the world, and there
are surely more. Meta-analyses of reef data from entire ocean basins are a
cottage industry at the moment, and the results are the main source of
evidence of the decline Bradbury decries. Scientists are anything but
sticking their heads in the sand.
I agree with John Bruno that there is no hard evidence that local
threats like overfishing and pollution are accelerating. Increasing
certainly, but the rate of increase has not been shown to be accelerating. I
would have to say, though, that greenhouse gas emissions and their effects
are accelerating. The rate of greenhouse gas emissions continue to
increase, so emissions are accelerating. The rate of sea level rise will
surely accelerate as the world warms, with most of the rise that will
happen this century occurring in the latter part of the century, and the
rate of rise will likely increase well into the next century unless we get
emissions under control. Acidification will increase proportionally to the
rate of CO2 release, which is indeed accelerating.
Bradbury says that “There will be remnants here and there” left. I
would like to point that not all of the world’s reefs are on steep declines.
In American Samoa, we have about 30% coral cover, and the trend over the
last 7 years is slightly upward. Wilkinson (2006) presented a graph that
showed that Australia, the Coral Triangle, and Pacific Islands were the
areas of the world’s reefs that were in the best condition at that time
(based on the huge Reef Check data set). In the Wilkinson Status of Coral
Reefs of the World: 2008 report, his graph on page 134 shows coral cover in
Indonesia as steady. In a plenary talk a few days ago at ICRS in Cairns,
Australia, Jamalludin Jompa showed graphs of coral cover over time at
several sites in Indonesia, with good coral cover and different sites going
up or down, but no overall change (you can view this presentation and that
of the other plenary presentations I refer to below at
http://www.coralcoe.org.au/icrs2012/Default.htm). That is a small sample
of Indonesia’s reefs, but if that is indicative of reefs there, that is
huge; Indonesia is not a small and unimportant place, it rivals Australia
for the country in the world with the most coral reefs. I claim that not
all is lost, not by a long shot.
As some other commentators have said, the fate of the world’s coral
reefs are in our hands. More accurately, in the hands of the world’s
people and their governments. It is quite true that currently people are
abusing reefs badly in many ways, over most of the world. It is also true
that scientists and managers are working flat out to reduce damage done by
humans, and like the review of NOAA’s coral reef programs concluded ‘many
wonderful things are being done, but the reefs are still going down the
tubes.’ Maybe nothing will change over the coming decades, and indeed most
all of the world’s reefs will be degraded beyond recognition, such that
coral reefs as we know them will largely cease to exist. That is quite
possible, maybe even probable, especially if people don’t change their ways.
We are indeed staring into the abyss, I think agreement on that is very
widespread.
But another presentation at ICRS, by Peter Kareiva (chief scientist
and vice president of the Nature Conservancy) pointed out that many
measures of environmental decline have peaked in developed countries and
have declined, some greatly. So, for instance, air and water quality have
improved in Europe, the US, and Japan. He showed a picture of when
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, was blackened by soot from smoke produced by
steel mills and the rivers were so polluted that people didn’t want to live
near them. Now the skies are clear, the soot has been cleaned off the
buildings, the city sparkles, and the rivers have fish that can be caught
and are safe to eat, and the city is rated one of the most liveable in the
U.S. Some of us remember when a river in Ohio was so polluted it caught
fire! No longer. At one time the smog in London from heating homes by
burning coal was so bad people were dying from coal soot. No longer. At
one time the air of Tokyo was so bad there were vending machines dispensing
oxygen for those who had breathing problems. No longer, the skies are
clear now. Yes, China is building a new coal power plant every week and a
huge cloud of air pollution blows from China over Japan and out over the
Pacific. But they know they have a problem and are already the world’s
leader in manufacturing renewable energy equipment. They will clean up
their energy production as soon as they can afford it. Human per capita
consumption in developed countries has already peaked and started to
decline, world population growth is slowing as family sizes come down in
many countries and world population growth may well peak in coming decades
and begin to slowly decline. A variety of other unsustainable practices
also are probably heading towards their peaks and future declines. Human
population and consumption/development are widely acknowledged to be the
ultimate drivers of damage to the environment (e.g., Sodhi & Ehrlich, 2010)
including to coral reefs (e.g. Brainard, et al. 2011; Fenner, 2012; and
many others). It is quite true that the world community has not committed
to a serious program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and if it doesn’t
we can kiss coral reefs as we know them goodby. But Australia has now
passed legislation committing itself to drastic reductions in greenhouse
gas emissions, and the cost for them and the world to do this is vastly
less than the public thinks, only about 1.2% of the economy. We spend more
on that for junk we throw away.
In another plenary presentation at ICRS, Madeleine van Oppen presented
work on the question of whether corals can acclimate and/or adapt fast
enough to buy us some time to work on controlling greenhouse gases. There
is no question that corals can acclimate and adapt some, but the jury is
still out on how fast they can do it, and how much they can adjust to. As
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg pointed out in his plenary talk, there is every reason
to be doubtful that they can adjust to 5-7o C temperature increase that we
are in for in the next couple hundred years if we don't do something. There
are limits to what every species can adapt to. But that much temperature
increase is far enough off that if we get to work reducing greenhouse gases
soon, we can limit temperature increases to amounts that some or most
corals probably can adapt to. There is no question that much more reef
degradation is going to happen before we get all the threats under control,
but if we do get them under control, we can avoid complete reef degradation..
Don't tell me that there is NO hope, and we should just let the reefs
and world go down the tube. I don’t believe it, and I think the evidence
doesn’t support it. Humans have a long history of muddling through,
waiting until a problem is huge and obvious, but then putting their
shoulders to the grindstone and doing what is necessary. That is the
history with air pollution, acid rain and the ozone hole. I submit that
the question is not whether humanity will fix these problems, but whether
they will do it in time to avoid the worst damages in decades to come. I
think we need to be very realistic about the challenges, they are very
great indeed, but it can be done, we know how to do it, we just have to
have the world’s populations and governments decide that it is worth the
effort and cost, and get going to do it.
Coral reefs provide people with hundreds of billions of dollars of
ecosystem services around the world every year. Bradbury says we should
stop wasting money on trying to save reefs and instead put the money into
figuring out what ecosystems will replace reefs, and how to nudge them to
produce the food and other ecosystem services people depend on. That’s a
recipe for disaster in my opinion. I agree with Bradbury that if we don't
act, living coral reefs will be replaced by degraded reefs made of rubble
or dead reef matrix covered with filamentous algae and macroalgae, with
lots of microbes and jellyfish. That can’t be nudged into producing large
amounts of reef fish without putting out vast “artificial reefs.” But
reefs are far too vast for that to be practical. Further, as reef growth
slows with coral death and acidification and sea level continues to rise,
reefs will provide less and less shoreline protection, and many tropical
shorelines will erode away, taking with them houses, villages and towns,
farmland and entire atoll nations. Some shorelines can be hardened at
great expense, but many countries have way too much shoreline and way too
little money to do that, like the Philippines with 3000 islands and
Indonesia with 13-15,000 islands. Hardening will probably not work on
atolls where the only land is low lying and made of sand, so thousands of
atolls around the world will go under. If Bradbury wants to face hard
facts, the hard fact is that we have NO alternative that will preserve the
ecosystem services of coral reefs. We must save them, or lose hundreds of
billions of dollars per year in benefits around the world, much of it in
countries that can least afford to lose it.
I submit that we have NO choice but to save the coral reefs, and in
fact humanity can do it, if it decides to.
Cheers, Douglas Fenner
Alvarez-Filip, L.; Dulvy, N.K.; Gill, J.A.; Côté, I.M.; Watkinson, A.R.
Flattening of Caribbean coral reefs: Region-wide declines in architectural
complexity. *Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B **2009*, *276*, 3019–3025.
Brainard, R.E., Birkeland, C., Eakin, C.M., McElhaney, P., Miller, M.W.,
Patterson, M., Piniak, G.A. 2011. Status review report of 82 candidate
coral species petitioned under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-PIFSC-27. 530 pp. Open access, download at:
http://www.fpir.noaa.gov/PRD/prd_esa_section_4.html
Bruno, J.F.; Selig, E.R. Regional decline of coral cover in the
Indo-Pacific: Timing, extent, and subregional comparisons. *PLoS One **2007*,
*2*, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000711.
Fenner, D. 2012. Challenges for managing fisheries on diverse coral reefs.
Diversity 4(1): 105-160. Available online open-access at
http://www.mdpi.com/search?q=&journal=diversity&volume=&authors=Fenner§ion=&issue=&article_type=&special_issue=&page=&search=Search
Gardner, T.A.; Côté, I.M.; Gill, J.A.; Grant, A.; Watkinson, A.R. Long-term
region-wide declines in Caribbean corals. *Science **2003*, *301*, 958–960.
Paddack, M.J.; Reynolds, J.D.; Aguilar, C.; Appeldoorn, R.S.; Beets, J.;
Burkett, E.W.; Chittaro, P.M.; Clarke, K.; Esteves, R.; Fonesca, A.C.; *et
al. *Recent region-wide declines in Caribbean reef fish abundance. *Curr.
Biol. **2009*, *19*, 590–596.
Sodhi, N.S., Ehrlich, P.R. 2010. Conservation Biology for All. Oxford
Univ. Press. 344 pp. This BOOK is available online open access at:
http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199554249.do
<http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199554249.do>
Wilkinson, C, Linden O, Cesar H, Hodgson G, Rubens J, Strong, AE (1999)
Ecological and socioeconomic impacts of 1998 coral mortality in the Indian
Ocean: an ENSO impact and a warning of future change? Ambio 28:188-196
Wilkinson, C. Status of coral reefs of the world: Summary of threats and
remedial action. In *Coral Reef Conservation*, Côté, I.M., Reynolds, J..D.,
Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2006; pp. 3–39.
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg <oveh at uq.edu.au> wrote:
> Dear Alina,
>
> I totally understand where you're coming from. My message, however, is
> that there are growing signs that (a) it is not too late for effective
> action to prevent us rising much above 450 ppm, and (b) change in such
> complex system is non-linear and is likely to happen extremely quickly.
> The future is not going to be determined by the dirt cheap price of gas and
> coal today. You only had to look at how different parts of the energy
> landscape are changing to appreciate the fact that we could see a rapid
> shift to renewable energy sources over those depending on fossil fuels. And
> ultimately, seemingly immovable ideological positions will fall away ... if
> only because it will become increasingly uneconomic not to shift towards
> renewable energy sources. In this regard, individuals and organisations
> that are pumping money into gas and coal infrastructure today are probably
> doing so at great risk to their capital.
>
> I believe we (as a scientific community) can speed up this transition by
> staying the course, and doggedly and faithfully relating to all and sundry
> what the science tells us. In this regard, coral reefs and climate change
> provide a particularly clear parable about the monumentally serious risk
> that climate change represents for natural ecosystems and human dependents
> across the planet. I believe, however, we have much more to do in terms of
> how we communicate this story - not only should we continue to expand our
> interaction with the mainstream media but we must also focus on capturing
> hearts and minds of hundreds of millions through effective social media
> campaigns and other mechanisms. Only then will we have the chance to speed
> up the transition that desperately needs to happen.
>
> So, I am relieved that you are not lying down and dying over this issue -
> as you know, I am not and don't think we are quite at that point yet.
> Best wishes,
>
> Ove
>
> From: Szmant, Alina [mailto:szmanta at uncw.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, 17 July 2012 11:05 AM
> To: Ove Hoegh-Guldberg; Roger Bradbury; Coral List (
> coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov)
> Cc: john.bythell at usp.ac.fj; William Fitt; rgates at hawaii.edu; Roberto
> Iglesias-Prieto; Michael Lesser; Yossi Loya; Robert van Woesik; Tim
> McClanahan; Peter Sale; Ernesto, Dr ARIAS; Mark Butler; Robert Cowen; Bret
> Danilowicz; Geoff Jones; Serge Planes; Barry RUDDICK; Yvonne SADOVY; Robert
> Steneck; Simon THORROLD; Mary, Dr Coffroth; Ken Lindeman; Drew Harvell;
> Garriet, Dr SMITH; Farooq AZAM; Eric Jordan; Eugene ROSENBERG; Ernesto
> Weil; Bette WILLIS; Laurie Raymundo; Craig Johnson; Bohdan Durnota;
> Porfirio Aliño; Rob SEYMOUR; Peter Campbell; Pascal Perez; Alasdair
> Edwards; Loke Chou; Richard Dodge; Ed Gomez; a.heyward at aims.gov.au;
> Aileen Morse; Buki Rinkevich; Tadashi Kimura; Makoto Omori;
> jrguest at gmail.com; spieler at nova.edu; Peter Mumby; Ellsworth LeDrew; CMS
> ext - Mark Eakin; Alan Strong; CMS ext - William Skirving; Laura David;
> Stuart Phinn; Nancy Knowlton; Margareth Kyewalyanga; CMS ext
> AJH at environmentservices; Mark Paterson; Marea Hatziolos; Kristen Sampson;
> Paul Dargusch; Jamaluddin Jompa; Shay O'Farrell; Cesar Villanoy; Michael
> Mascia; Carl Smith; Beth.Fulton at csiro.au; Randy Olson (rolson at usc.edu);
> Mark Milstein; Medrilzam; Sebastian Thomas; annette menez; Maricar Samson;
> plokani at gmail.com
> Subject: RE: New York Times op-ed piece - thoughts for Phase II
>
> Hi Ove:
>
> I am not laying down and dying, on this issue, and I put my money where my
> mouth is: we installed solar panels on our home that produce 50 % of what
> we use, and we reduced our monthly electricity consumption by 50 % by
> replacing older ACs, appliances, all LED bulbs, etc (major bank loans to
> handle this investment). We drive Pruis' and I've also become a vegetarian
> to reduce my contribution to climate change related to animal husbandry. I
> teach seminar courses about human impacts on the environment, hoping to
> inspire our college age voters to make good choices with their wallets and
> lives, and give frequent lectures to our educated seniors as well. I am 66
> and have no grandchildren. Other than slitting my throat, there is only
> so much more I can do to reduce my contribution to the problem.
>
> But I am not encouraged that any of this will do any good because the
> number of people who like me are spending money to reduce their greenhouse
> gas footprint are likely less than 1 % of 300 M people in the USA. Your
> cited reports aside, most of which are meaningless arm-waving because no
> real action comes out of them, there is not much happening in this country
> to really grapple with the climate change problem. I keep hoping some
> major disaster will convince people to act (like in the movies), but none
> of the disasters are large enough to affect more than a few thousand people
> at a time, not enough to sway voters. Our upcoming November election will
> be very telling as to what direction the US will take on major
> environmental issues. If we get more of the 2010 type of results, we will
> be in for another 4 years of grid-lock and no action.
>
> I wish I could be more optimistic, and very much hope I am wrong. Time
> will tell, all too soon. But just spouting optimistic platitudes will not
> get us anywhere. The truth is that the human species seldom responds to a
> problem until after a disaster happens, seldomly as a preventative.
>
> Regards,
>
> Alina
>
> *************************************************************************
> Dr. Alina M. Szmant
> Professor of Marine Biology
> Center for Marine Science and Dept of Biology and Marine Biology
> University of North Carolina Wilmington
> 5600 Marvin Moss Ln
> Wilmington NC 28409 USA
> tel: 910-962-2362 fax: 910-962-2410 cell: 910-200-3913
> http://people.uncw.edu/szmanta
> *******************************************************
>
> From: Ove Hoegh-Guldberg [mailto:oveh at uq.edu.au]
> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 4:50 PM
> To: Szmant, Alina; Roger Bradbury
> Cc: john.bythell at usp.ac.fj; William Fitt; rgates at hawaii.edu; Roberto
> Iglesias-Prieto; Michael Lesser; Yossi Loya; Robert van Woesik; Tim
> McClanahan; Peter Sale; Ernesto, Dr ARIAS; Mark Butler; Robert Cowen; Bret
> Danilowicz; Geoff Jones; Serge Planes; Barry RUDDICK; Yvonne SADOVY; Robert
> Steneck; Simon THORROLD; Mary, Dr Coffroth; Ken Lindeman; Drew Harvell;
> Garriet, Dr SMITH; Farooq AZAM; Eric Jordan; Eugene ROSENBERG; Ernesto
> Weil; Bette WILLIS; Laurie Raymundo; Craig Johnson; Bohdan Durnota;
> Porfirio Aliño; Rob SEYMOUR; Peter Campbell; Pascal Perez; Alasdair
> Edwards; Loke Chou; Richard Dodge; Ed Gomez; a.heyward at aims.gov.au;
> Aileen Morse; Buki Rinkevich; Tadashi Kimura; Makoto Omori;
> jrguest at gmail.com; spieler at nova.edu; Peter Mumby; Ellsworth LeDrew; CMS
> ext - Mark Eakin; Alan Strong; CMS ext - William Skirving; Laura David;
> Stuart Phinn; Nancy Knowlton; Margareth Kyewalyanga; CMS ext
> AJH at environmentservices; Mark Paterson; Marea Hatziolos; Kristen Sampson;
> Paul Dargusch; Jamaluddin Jompa; Shay O'Farrell; Cesar Villanoy; Michael
> Mascia; Carl Smith; Beth.Fulton at csiro.au; Randy Olson (rolson at usc.edu);
> Mark Milstein; Medrilzam; Sebastian Thomas; annette menez; Maricar Samson;
> plokani at gmail.com
> Subject: RE: New York Times op-ed piece - thoughts for Phase II
>
> Thank you Alina. Two very quick points. I am under no illusion about the
> current crescendo of enthusiasm for fossil fuels. Australia is also going
> gangbusters but many in the industry and government are beginning to
> understand the economic peril of not adopting renewables. The latter is to
> simply good economic and security sense. Part of the current mad rush
> forward is about the bravado of fossil fuel industries trying to push a
> reality that just isn't. I urge you to read the GCI energy report I
> mentioned in a previous e-mail to get the gist of what I mean in this
> respect (note that the advisory group for this study include CEOs of energy
> companies, grid distributors, energy intensive industries etc). The second
> point is that to lie down and die on an issue that concerns not only the
> health of coral reefs that the future of our children and grandchildren,
> and humanity in general, is a complete copout when solutions do exist.
> Given that we don't know how the future will unfold when we get to 5 or 10
> years out from now, there is no other rational response than that we must
> redouble our efforts to bring the reality of dying yet redeemable world to
> all and sundry. Our community is perfectly situated to tell a simple story
> regarding coral reefs - straightforward and illustrative of the problem and
> the linkage between a deteriorating climate, natural ecosystems and the
> survival of people.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ove
>
>
> From: Szmant, Alina [mailto:szmanta at uncw.edu]<mailto:[mailto:
> szmanta at uncw.edu]>
> Sent: Tuesday, 17 July 2012 6:22 AM
> To: Ove Hoegh-Guldberg; Roger Bradbury
> Cc: john.bythell at usp.ac.fj<mailto:john.bythell at usp.ac.fj>; William Fitt;
> rgates at hawaii.edu<mailto:rgates at hawaii.edu>; Roberto Iglesias-Prieto;
> Michael Lesser; Yossi Loya; Robert van Woesik; Tim McClanahan; Peter Sale;
> Ernesto, Dr ARIAS; Mark Butler; Robert Cowen; Bret Danilowicz; Geoff Jones;
> Serge Planes; Barry RUDDICK; Yvonne SADOVY; Robert Steneck; Simon THORROLD;
> Mary, Dr Coffroth; Ken Lindeman; Drew Harvell; Garriet, Dr SMITH; Farooq
> AZAM; Eric Jordan; Eugene ROSENBERG; Ernesto Weil; Bette WILLIS; Laurie
> Raymundo; Craig Johnson; Bohdan Durnota; Porfirio Aliño; Rob SEYMOUR; Peter
> Campbell; Pascal Perez; Alasdair Edwards; Loke Chou; Richard Dodge; Ed
> Gomez; a.heyward at aims.gov.au<mailto:a.heyward at aims.gov.au>; Aileen Morse;
> Buki Rinkevich; Tadashi Kimura; Makoto Omori; jrguest at gmail.com<mailto:
> jrguest at gmail.com>; spieler at nova.edu<mailto:spieler at nova.edu>; Peter
> Mumby; Ellsworth LeDrew; CMS ext - Mark Eakin; Alan Strong; CMS ext -
> William Skirving; Laura David; Stuart Phinn; Nancy Knowlton; Margareth
> Kyewalyanga; CMS ext AJH at environmentservices; Mark Paterson; Marea
> Hatziolos; Kristen Sampson; Paul Dargusch; Jamaluddin Jompa; Shay
> O'Farrell; Cesar Villanoy; Michael Mascia; Carl Smith; Beth.Fulton at csiro.au
> <mailto:Beth.Fulton at csiro.au>; Mark Milstein; Medrilzam; Sebastian
> Thomas; annette menez; Maricar Samson; plokani at gmail.com<mailto:
> plokani at gmail.com>
> Subject: RE: New York Times op-ed piece - thoughts for Phase II
>
> Dear Ove:
>
> If your optimistic comments and opinions about the future of coral reefs
> (and the global ecosystem in general) are based on a change of heart and
> opinion in the USA about climate change, you are being falsely mislead by a
> few non-representative newspaper articles, and conversations with
> unrealistic people. The fact of the matter is that efforts to develop all
> forms of fossil fuel are rampant here in the USA. The big gas, coal and
> oil companies and their super-PACS are flooding the airways with adds about
> these wonderful forms of "clean energy" and the importance to the future
> of American jobs and economy. The environmental movement in the USA is
> weaker than the US economy and job prospects. Decades of rampant
> consumerism and false dreams of everyone having the types of lifestyles of
> the rich and famous as portrayed on TV, plus inadequate science (or
> economic) education in the USA, have led to several generations of voters
> who have no recognition of the problems we are facing in the near future.
> In fact, in my current state of NC, the state legislature voted to ignore
> all recent studies of rates of sea level change, and that these newer
> studies cannot be used for coastal zone management policies to limit
> development of low lying coastal areas. So far we have fought off offshore
> drilling, but they will start fracking soon (this coming year). And so it
> is pretty much everywhere in the country you look. The Obama
> administration is doing nothing to educate and warn our populace about
> climate change. Neither are his agencies.
>
> I agree with Roger that from where I sit, pitifully, it seems pretty
> hopeless. Too little, too slow, too late.
>
> Alina
>
> *************************************************************************
> Dr. Alina M. Szmant
> Professor of Marine Biology
> Center for Marine Science and Dept of Biology and Marine Biology
> University of North Carolina Wilmington
> 5600 Marvin Moss Ln
> Wilmington NC 28409 USA
> tel: 910-962-2362 fax: 910-962-2410 cell: 910-200-3913
> http://people.uncw.edu/szmanta
> *******************************************************
>
> From: Ove Hoegh-Guldberg [mailto:oveh at uq.edu.au]<mailto:[mailto:
> oveh at uq.edu..au]>
> Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 10:48 PM
> To: Roger Bradbury
> Cc: john.bythell at usp.ac.fj<mailto:john.bythell at usp.ac.fj>; William Fitt;
> rgates at hawaii.edu<mailto:rgates at hawaii.edu>; Roberto Iglesias-Prieto;
> Michael Lesser; Yossi Loya; Robert van Woesik; Tim McClanahan; Peter Sale;
> Ernesto, Dr ARIAS; Mark Butler; Robert Cowen; Bret Danilowicz; Geoff Jones;
> Serge Planes; Barry RUDDICK; Yvonne SADOVY; Robert Steneck; Szmant, Alina;
> Simon THORROLD; Mary, Dr Coffroth; Ken Lindeman; Drew Harvell; Garriet, Dr
> SMITH; Farooq AZAM; Eric Jordan; Eugene ROSENBERG; Ernesto Weil; Bette
> WILLIS; Laurie Raymundo; Craig Johnson; Bohdan Durnota; Porfirio Aliño; Rob
> SEYMOUR; Peter Campbell; Pascal Perez; Alasdair Edwards; Loke Chou; Richard
> Dodge; Ed Gomez; a.heyward at aims.gov.au<mailto:a.heyward at aims.gov.au>;
> Aileen Morse; Buki Rinkevich; Tadashi Kimura; Makoto Omori;
> jrguest at gmail.com<mailto:jrguest at gmail.com>; spieler at nova.edu<mailto:
> spieler at nova.edu>; Peter Mumby; Ellsworth LeDrew; CMS ext - Mark Eakin;
> Alan Strong; CMS ext - William Skirving; Laura David; Stuart Phinn; Nancy
> Knowlton; Margareth Kyewalyanga; CMS ext AJH at environmentservices; Mark
> Paterson; Marea Hatziolos; Kristen Sampson; Paul Dargusch; Jamaluddin
> Jompa; Shay O'Farrell; Cesar Villanoy; Michael Mascia; Carl Smith;
> Beth.Fulton at csiro.au<mailto:Beth.Fulton at csiro.au>; Mark Milstein;
> Medrilzam; Sebastian Thomas; annette menez; Maricar Samson;
> plokani at gmail.com<mailto:plokani at gmail.com>
> Subject: RE: New York Times op-ed piece - thoughts for Phase II
>
> Thanks Roger. I would adopt a similarly pessimistic position except for
> the fact that I believe pressure for swift action on fossil fuels and
> related issues is building exponentially. I don't think this has been
> truly appreciated within our thinking ... many are now being caught off
> guard by the rapid pace at which the climate change impacts such as extreme
> events in the earth's weather system are building.
>
> The other issue which is predictably unpredictable is the rate at which
> technology is changing and the cost of renewables plummeting (50% decrease
> in PV technology the last year alone). Yes, China may be still building
> coal-fired power stations but investments in renewables globally have
> extended to six times those of fossil fuels (2011: $260 B versus $40 B<
> http://www.abc..
> net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/renewables-investment-eclipses-fossil-fuels/4019784>).
> A revolution is in progress. This is generating new thinking at a rapid
> rate and massive scale. A recent study by the Renewable Energy Group within
> the Global Change Institute, for example, has demonstrated that Australian
> energy generation depending on fossil fuels will be uncompetitive next to
> renewables within a very short time (see the report here<
> http://gci.uq.edu.au/News/CompetitivePowerReport.aspx>). This goes for
> the majority of other countries as well. Given that the hindrance towards
> adopting policies for a safe climate is not one of technology and economics
> (as pointed out time and time again by Sir Nicholas Stern and many other
> expert economists) but rather one of politics and special interest, I
> believe that accepting a rapid and systematic switch (which won't be
> comfortable but will be essential) will occur within the next few years.
>
> After all, this is about people at the end of the day and this issue is
> rapidly taking on the dimensions of a short-term/in-your-face issue that
> can drive rapid political change. One only has to look in the heartland of
> the United States<
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/us-climate-official-says-more-extreme-events-convincing-many-americans-climate-change-is-real/2012/07/06/gJQAHNZ5QW_story.html>
> truly appreciate how quickly public opinion is and is likely to change.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ove
>
> Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
> Global Change Institute
> University of Queensland
>
>
> From: Roger Bradbury [mailto:roger.bradbury at mac.com]<mailto:[mailto:
> roger.bradbury at mac.com]>
> Sent: Sunday, 15 July 2012 11:58 AM
> To: Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
> Cc: john.bythell at usp.ac.fj<mailto:john.bythell at usp.ac.fj>; William Fitt;
> rgates at hawaii.edu<mailto:rgates at hawaii.edu>; Roberto Iglesias-Prieto;
> Michael Lesser; Yossi Loya; Robert van Woesik; Tim McClanahan; Peter Sale;
> Ernesto, Dr ARIAS; Mark Butler; Robert Cowen; Bret Danilowicz; Geoff Jones;
> Serge Planes; Barry RUDDICK; Yvonne SADOVY; Robert Steneck; Alina SZMANT;
> Simon THORROLD; Mary, Dr Coffroth; Ken Lindeman; Drew Harvell; Garriet, Dr
> SMITH; Farooq AZAM; Eric Jordan; Eugene ROSENBERG; Ernesto Weil; Bette
> WILLIS; Laurie Raymundo; Craig Johnson; Bohdan Durnota; Porfirio Aliño; Rob
> SEYMOUR; Peter Campbell; Pascal Perez; Alasdair Edwards; Loke Chou; Richard
> Dodge; Ed Gomez; a.heyward at aims.gov.au<mailto:a.heyward at aims.gov.au>;
> Aileen Morse; Buki Rinkevich; Tadashi Kimura; Makoto Omori;
> jrguest at gmail.com<mailto:jrguest at gmail.com>; spieler at nova.edu<mailto:
> spieler at nova.edu>; Peter Mumby; Ellsworth LeDrew; CMS ext - Mark Eakin;
> Alan Strong; CMS ext - William Skirving; Laura David; Stuart Phinn; Nancy
> Knowlton; Margareth Kyewalyanga; CMS ext AJH at environmentservices; Mark
> Paterson; Marea Hatziolos; Kristen Sampson; Paul Dargusch; Jamaluddin
> Jompa; Shay O'Farrell; Cesar Villanoy; Michael Mascia; Carl Smith;
> Beth.Fulton at csiro.au<mailto:Beth.Fulton at csiro.au>; Mark Milstein;
> Medrilzam; Sebastian Thomas; annette menez; Maricar Samson;
> plokani at gmail.com<mailto:plokani at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: New York Times op-ed piece - thoughts for Phase II
>
> Thanks, Ove, for the response.
>
> But as you say, it all hinges on 'if ...'
>
> Unfortunately, the realpolitik says that there is a vanishingly small prob
> of that happening, so small that no reasonable person would bet on it.
>
> Emissions are not only increasing, but they accelerated in the noughties
> compared to the nineties. The actual data are now above the most
> pessimistic IPCC projections. China is building coal-fired power stations
> at a prodigious rate, more than negating any decreases in the Western
> world, India is just coming on line. The price of gas is dropping and the
> energy security issue is ensuring that there will be a gas bonanza in the
> US and EU. China will not make any concessions that affect its GDP growth
> rate, since the survival of the regime depends on this. India will go ditto
> as it ramps up competition with China.
>
> And remember, a few years ago we said that we had to turn emissions down
> by 2012. What happened to that?
>
> And that's only the emissions. Fishing and nitrogen flux follow the same
> story.
>
> Let's chat in more detail when we meet next week in Brisbane.
>
> Yours in realism
>
> Rog
>
>
> On 15/07/2012, at 9:49 AM, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg wrote:
>
> Hi Roger,
>
> Thanks for the link. I must admit that I don't share your 'game already
> over' conclusion (as you probably already know). If we were to
> aggressively shift to zero carbon energy systems by the end of 10-15 years
> from now and pursue the lowest of low climate scenarios (such as the RCP
> 2.6 pathway of the IPCC), then coral reefs will have an excellent chance of
> not only surviving the next century but flourishing and expanding as we get
> to the latter part of the present century. In the short term, there is no
> doubt that coral reefs will decrease to a minimal level. Strengthening our
> efforts and renewing our resolve, however, to protect and nourish reefs as
> we go through this 'coral reef minima' will be absolutely essential to
> their survival.
>
> I believe we are going to decisively tackle the climate change crisis in
> this way (for many reasons if not for the growing crisis in extreme weather
> events around the world and other 'motivators'). There is still time and
> stabilisation of climate impacts while ramping up efforts to protect reefs
> from others stressors is key.
>
> Let's face it, there is no other reasonable and rational alternatives.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ove
>
> Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
> Global Change Institute
> University of Queensland
>
> From: Roger Bradbury [mailto:roger.bradbury at mac.com]<mailto:[mailto:
> roger.bradbury at mac.com]>
> Sent: Sunday, 15 July 2012 8:45 AM
> To: Ove Hoegh-Guldberg; john.bythell at usp.ac.fj<mailto:
> john.bythell at usp.ac.fj>; William Fitt; rgates at hawaii.edu<mailto:
> rgates at hawaii.edu>; Roberto Iglesias-Prieto; Michael Lesser; Yossi Loya;
> Robert van Woesik; Tim McClanahan; Peter Sale; Ernesto, Dr ARIAS; Mark
> Butler; Robert Cowen; Bret Danilowicz; Geoff Jones; Serge Planes; Barry
> RUDDICK; Yvonne SADOVY; Robert Steneck; Alina SZMANT; Simon THORROLD; Mary,
> Dr Coffroth; Ken Lindeman; Drew Harvell; Garriet, Dr SMITH; Farooq AZAM;
> Eric Jordan; Eugene ROSENBERG; Ernesto Weil; Bette WILLIS; Laurie Raymundo;
> Roger Bradbury; Craig Johnson; Bohdan Durnota; Porfirio Aliño; Rob SEYMOUR;
> Peter Campbell; Pascal Perez; Alasdair Edwards; Loke Chou; Richard Dodge;
> Ed Gomez; a.heyward at aims.gov.au<mailto:a.heyward at aims.gov.au>; Aileen
> Morse; Buki Rinkevich; Tadashi Kimura; Makoto Omori; jrguest at gmail.com
> <mailto:jrguest at gmail.com>; spieler at nova.edu<mailto:spieler at nova.edu>;
> Peter Mumby; Ellsworth LeDrew; CMS ext - Mark Eakin; Alan Strong; CMS ext -
> William Skirving; Laura David; Stuart Phinn; Nancy Knowlton; Margareth
> Kyewalyanga; CMS ext AJH at environmentservices; Mark Paterson
> Cc: Marea Hatziolos; Kristen Sampson; Paul Dargusch; Jamaluddin Jompa;
> Shay O'Farrell; Cesar Villanoy; Michael Mascia; Carl
> Smith;Beth.Fulton at csiro.au<mailto:Beth.Fulton at csiro.au>; Mark Milstein;
> Mark Paterson; Medrilzam; Sebastian Thomas; annette menez; Maricar Samson;
> plokani at gmail.com<mailto:plokani at gmail.com>
> Subject: New York Times op-ed piece - thoughts for Phase II
>
> Hi everyone
>
> Sadly, I didn't make it to the ICRS. I offered both a paper and a
> mini-symposium to the meeting, but both were rejected.
>
> I feel that I had some important, new and controversial things to say, but
> it seems that those fresh ideas were not welcome.
>
> However, they were avidly welcomed by the New York Times, where you'll
> find an op-ed piece published in Saturday's edition.
>
> See
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/opinion/a-world-without-coral-reefs.html?_r=2&hpw
>
> I think there are some ideas in here that bear on Phase II.
>
> There should, in the least, be a project that looks at Plan B for the
> Anthropocene. That is, what will we do if our optimistic plans for tropical
> coastal waters turn to dust.
>
> We should be starting work now, on the biophysical side, on how we can
> engineer the ecosystems that will replace coral reefs so that they provide
> useful ecosystem goods and services, and, on the human side of the ledger,
> on what the necessary structural adjustment will look like.
>
> This is just the beginning of a new do-list for humanity.
>
> I look forward to discussing.
>
> Cheers
>
> Rog
>
>
>
> --
> Roger Bradbury
>
> Adjunct Professor
> College of Asia and the Pacific
> Australian National University
> Canberra ACT Australia 0200
>
> Phone +61 2 6295 2839 (home office)
> Mobile +61 419 221 003
> Email roger at tjurunga.com<mailto:roger at tjurunga.com> or
> roger.bradbury at anu..edu.au<mailto:roger.bradbury at anu.edu.au>
> Web http://www.crawford.anu.edu.au/staff/rmap/rbradbury.php
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
--
Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government
PO Box 7390
Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA
More information about the Coral-List
mailing list