Alina Szmant alina at cisme-instruments.com
Fri Aug 7 14:07:08 UTC 2020

Actually Dennis: per capita we (Americans) produce 4-5 times more CO2 than Chinese and used to produce even more than that before their economy started to boom post-Mao. And that is without factoring in the export of emissions to China because they manufacture so much of what we consume.  But there are ca. 4 times more Chinese than Americans,  so that is why they noq, as a nation not per capita, produce more CO2 than rhe USA. I know that you know this, but some on Coral-List may not be aware of this. Sum total of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions added since the beginning of the industrial revolution,  it's still the USA which done the most damage by a long shot!

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

-------- Original message --------
From: Dennis Hubbard via Coral-List <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
Date: 8/7/20 9:55 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: Douglas Fenner <douglasfennertassi at gmail.com>
Cc: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov

Hi Doug:

I don't totally share your optimism. I was on a trip to China a few years
back and we visited several Universities in and around Bejing. Mostly what
I heard were talks about how many more decimal points they could put on
their measurements (pct --> ppt --> ppm, etc.) as their instrumentation got
more sophisticated. I remember commenting that being able to measure more
accurately was being conflated with greater control (when we walked outside
the lab, you couldn't see much more than a few blocks). When we  moved to
central China where most of the environmental programs sit, we saw talks
about the tremendous losses of diversity in terrestrial systems including
in national parks. In another presentation, they expressed concerns that
they were exporting most of their low-sulphur coal at a high price so they
could import larger quantities of high-sulphur coal from Australia to fuel
their rising energy demands. .I'm not blaming China - a lot of the pattern
is a result of our demand for cheaper products. In many ways, we are
outsourcing our emissions to China and other area.... and then blaming them
for putting so much more into the atmosphere than we are.


On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 10:20 AM Douglas Fenner via Coral-List <
coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> wrote:

> Apologies, that post got sent before it was ready.
>    So during rapid economic growth, such as the industrial revolution in
> the UK, Europe, and the US, pollution rapidly grew out of control, and
> people didn't realize the source of the problem.  In London, "London fog"
> was really smog from burning coal in fireplaces to heat homes.  At one
> point it killed about 2000 people.  If you travel above ground sections of
> the subway there today, you see nearly endless rows of houses all with many
> smoke stacks.  But zero smoke.  You look around and the air looks clear.
> People aren't choking on it.  There was a time, maybe in the 60's, when
> Tokyo's air was so bad there were coin operated machines on the sidewalk
> that dispensed oxygen for those who needed it.  No more, like London, this
> gigantic urban area with something like 24 million people, has air that
> looks clear and people aren't choking and dying in the streets.
> Pittsburgh, in the US used to have blackened buildings from the soot from
> coal-fired steel mills.  No more, the mills are gone, people have other
> jobs, the buildings were cleaned, the city gleams and competes for the best
> quality of life in the USA.  Tell me those aren't success stories!!!!   AI
> CAN and WILL be repeated, China and India know they have a terrible air
> pollution problem, and they are on it.  They know about the huge health
> costs of caring for people sickened by it, lost work hours, lost lives.
> China is now the world's largest solar panel manufacturer.  India has a
> plan for renewables that is so ambitious people doubt they can do it that
> fast.  (No, the air is far from perfect, and the battle is not over.  It
> will never be over, but  real progress has been made and will be made.)
>     There are huge constituencies for the environment, and politicians
> ignore that to their own peril.  BUT, there are lots of things people
> consider benefits of doing things that end up damaging the environment,
> including coral reefs, and can come back to bite us.  Coral reefs are
> major  tourist attractions.  They feed hundreds of millions of poor people
> along coasts, and they provide hundreds of millions of dollars worth of
> coastal protection.
>      There is a story that someone came to US president FDR once and
> pleaded for action on something.  FDR grinned and said "make me do it!"  He
> wasn't mocking the person, he was saying he has to have support.  Get your
> constituents and supporters to make a LOT of noise and DEMAND it, and I
> will do it gladly.
>       Right now is the opposite of the ideal time given the pandemic
> emergency, but different issues are commonly addressed simultaneously.
>  Environmental battles never end, there is no inevitability of either
> winning or losing.  Persistence and determination and action and things
> that appeal to the public help win battles, sitting in the ivory tower and
> not speaking out don't.  Nothing ventured, nothing gained, sticking your
> neck out is absolutely required to make progress.  The squeaky wheel gets
> the grease.  I have to say that the media have been an enormous help for
> us, the articles on the damage we do to the reefs and oceans and climate
> change has been nearly endless.  The more people know that their income and
> health is threatened, the more outraged they are, and the more pressure
> they apply.  Part of our problem is that the threats to humans from us
> degrading the reefs is not always obvious enough.  We need to make it
> obvious and unavoidably obvious.  But I think polls have shown an
> increasing concern about climate change and support for action.  I sense
> the tide is shifting in our favor on this issue, and it is the biggest
> threat to the future of reefs.
>      So this is a call to action.  Action gets results, inaction doesn't.
> When people believe that it is in their own best interests to save the
> reefs, they WILL get saved.  Not until then.
> Cheers,  Doug
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 8:23 AM Douglas Fenner <
> douglasfennertassi at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I believe that everyone in this discussion is making good points.
> >     I would like to add a hint of optimism.  There are aspects of
> > environmental battles that provide solid grounds for optimism, as well as
> > for caution and pessimism.  The grounds for optimism are that people
> don't
> > like things that threaten their health, or survival, or income, or
> > livelihoods.  A few years ago in the US lead was discovered in the water
> > supply in Flint, Michigan.  It was in the international news.  Outrage
> > resulted.  I haven't kept up with the story, but I bet it is being fixed,
> > because if it isn't, the outrage is a threat to the political careers of
> > elected officials.  ]k= =-z>:"AA^%q
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 1:36 AM Steve via Coral-List <
> > coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Mike Risk’s perspective on the effects of coral scientists not speaking
> >> with a unified voice clearly resonates with me.
> >>
> >> While the point is well taken that people have shown that they care way
> >> more about other things, how can we expect this dynamic to ever change
> when
> >> the messaging they receive from the “experts” in the coral science
> >> community continues to be rife with ambiguity? Policy makers respond to
> >> monied interests, but public opinion matters too and there is every
> >> indication that interest in environmental issues is on the rise,
> especially
> >> with the younger generation.
> >>
> >> What would happen if the messaging put out about what we need to do to
> >> “save coral reefs” was done with more clarity, simplicity and
> conviction?
> >>
> >> Consider the paper cited (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231817)
> >> on survivorship of the ongoing NRP (NOAA Recovery Plan) in the Florida
> Keys
> >> Marine Sanctuary. As I read it, the paper makes it clear that “reducing
> >> stressors is required before significant population growth and recovery
> >> will occur. Until then, outplanting protects against local extinction
> and
> >> helps maintain genetic diversity in the wild”. Although this conclusion
> >> points to a significant role for restoration, it makes clear that
> reducing
> >> (both local and global) stressors is paramount.
> >>
> >> Why can’t we make that point clear? What’s so hard about selling the
> >> public on the idea that we must restore some semblance of the natural
> >> ecological balance? Clean up the water; promote sustainable fisheries
> and
> >> cut carbon emissions. That simple message has yet to resonate in the
> public
> >> domain. Instead, many have become convinced that the only viable
> strategy
> >> is to race to outplant supercorals designed to withstand an inevitable
> and
> >> mounting onslaught of stressors that are somehow beyond our control.
> >>
> >> I have listened to many gray-haired coral reef scientists and there’s
> >> obviously more capitulation out there than optimism.
> >>
> >> So, does it even matter at this point if we change the messaging? Maybe
> >> not, but it may represent our best last chance to try.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Steve Mussman
> >>
> >> Sent from EarthLink Mobile mail
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Coral-List mailing list
> >> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> >> https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list

Dennis Hubbard
Chair, Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074
(440) 775-8346

* "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"*
 Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*"
Coral-List mailing list
Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov

More information about the Coral-List mailing list