Global Climate Change as it Relates to Coral Reefs

[schminksbro]

Global Climate Change is one of the most serious yet most controversial subjects of our time. The controversy is largely divided along political lines. Generally those on the left believe that Climate Change is happening and it is caused primarily by man. Those on the right generally argue that it is not happening and if it is it isn't caused by man. What do you think? There is the topic. Let the fire storm begin! However lets keep it civil. We are all friends here:thumbsup:

[creefer]

A very hotly contested issue, indeed. It does most certainly fall along political party line for the most part. I personally believe that the reasons for climate change are not attributed solely to man. Nor do I believe that it is solely attributed to cyclical changes in the dynamic life of the earth in general but more of a combination of the two. There is no doubt that man has had an impact on climate yet there is doubt to what extent. There is also no doubt that climate is dynamic and has experienced change in the course of the earth's recorded history.

Those things having been said, climate change and its effects on reefs is notable and worthy of discussion. I don't know all of the science, nor all the reasons, but I do know that reefs are bleaching. I also don't know if this fact is attributable to only climate change. I believe that there are pollution issues that have an effect on the general health of the reef regardless of climatic change.

In any case, I'm interested to read opinions on the matter. For now, I'll leave my politics out of the discussion.

[creefer]

I thought this thread might have more activity than it has.....

[redemer123]

i agree with creefer 100%

[Werdlone]

This is like talking about religion or politics on a first date. It rarely ends well. Schminksbro and I have had this argument/debate before and have agreed to disagree. We now stick to things we agree on and remain good friends.

The political issue comes in when the threat of climate change is used to: change laws, regulate people's choices, regulate business products and production, and add taxes. It is used for a power grab. The science has been largely falsified and was brought to light in the last year. The UN (IPCC) report on global warming that led to a nobel prize in 2009 was largely proved bogus. Conveniently, the raw data had all been destroyed, but the "converted" data is still around...yeah. Google it to verify. Scientists were converting raw data to fit their projections as well as leaving out certain data. The scientists emails were interceptied and they openly discussed it amongst themselves. If I did this in my field, I would lose my license to practice medicine and would probably be serving jail time. I think the IPCC just got some bad press from only a limited number of legitamate news outlets.

I am not saying that coral reefs are not bleaching and that rivers, lakes and inner cities are not getting polluted. I agree that is ocurring and we need to address it on a local basis. I don't feel we are changing our climate and I disagree with viewing carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Is climate changing..yes, daily as I can recall. I don't think we have anything to do with it.

[creefer]

This is like talking about religion or politics on a first date. It rarely ends well. Schminksbro and I have had this argument/debate before and have agreed to disagree. We now stick to things we agree on and remain good friends.

The political issue comes in when the threat of climate change is used to: change laws, regulate people's choices, regulate business products and production, and add taxes. It is used for a power grab. The science has been largely falsified and was brought to light in the last year. The UN (IPCC) report on global warming that led to a nobel prize in 2009 was largely proved bogus. Conveniently, the raw data had all been destroyed, but the "converted" data is still around...yeah. Google it to verify. Scientists were converting raw data to fit their projections as well as leaving out certain data. The scientists emails were interceptied and they openly discussed it amongst themselves. If I did this in my field, I would lose my license to practice medicine and would probably be serving jail time. I think the IPCC just got some bad press from only a limited number of legitamate news outlets.

I am not saying that coral reefs are not bleaching and that rivers, lakes and inner cities are not getting polluted. I agree that is ocurring and we need to address it on a local basis. I don't feel we are changing our climate and I disagree with viewing carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Is climate changing..yes, daily as I can recall. I don't think we have anything to do with it.

Very well stated, Werdlone.

[schminksbro]

Of course there are astronomical amounts of corporate money being spent to muddy the waters on the issue. Being that corporations only exist to profit does anyone think that they would change their ways in the face of absolute proof that they were harming the global environment? Is it remotely possible for the average citizen to sift through all the propaganda on both sides of the argument and come up with the truth?

[creefer]

Of course there are astronomical amounts of corporate money being spent to muddy the waters on the issue. Being that corporations only exist to profit does anyone think that they would change their ways in the face of absolute proof that they were harming the global environment? Is it remotely possible for the average citizen to sift through all the propaganda on both sides of the argument and come up with the truth?

Why is it that you are placing the blame solely on corporations? I suspect that there are other issues not related to corporations that have a direct affect on the contamination of the environment. I don't necessarily believe that corporations are responsible for the overall health, or lack thereof, of reefs. Further, corporations do exist that are not solely for the purposes of profit. I happen to be a member of one where profits are virtually nonexistent. Any group of people can form a corporation for various reasons. And please, don't paint a picture that profitability is a bad thing. We are, after all, a capitalist society and the system works beautifully when our elected officials stay out of the way.

Chort55, I agree with everything you have to say, btw.

[schminksbro]

I am not solely placing the blame on corporations. However there are certain industries that are especially damaging including the petrol chemical industry, the automotive industry, and the coal industry to just name a few. I also don't think profit is a bad thing. That is what most companies existence is based on. However if the sole purpose is to make money do you think that in the face of proof that they are severely damaging the environment that they would cease to do so? Or would they simply seek to distort the evidence? Is profit more important that environment? Was BP dumping millions of barrels of oil into the oceans a good thing? Are there or should there be any limitations on greed in a capitalist society? Has there ever been any evidence that for profit corporations have policed themselves for the good of the environment excluding public relations campaigns?

Why is it that you are placing the blame solely on corporations? I suspect that there are other issues not related to corporations that have a direct affect on the contamination of the environment. I don't necessarily believe that corporations are responsible for the overall health, or lack thereof, of reefs. Further, corporations do exist that are not solely for the purposes of profit. I happen to be a member of one where profits are virtually nonexistent. Any group of people can form a corporation for various reasons. And please, don't paint a picture that profitability is a bad thing. We are, after all, a capitalist society and the system works beautifully when our elected officials stay out of the way.

Chort55, I agree with everything you have to say, btw.

[creefer]

I am not solely placing the blame on corporations. However there are certain industries that are especially damaging including the petrol chemical industry, the automotive industry, and the coal industry to just name a few.

The auto industry and coal industry, at least in the US, have become far more clean than they were at their inception. There is not doubt about that. Specifically related to the auto industry, there are many manufacturers whose plants are working toward zero landfill waste in not only their production commodities, but their construction needs as well. While this may not have been the case 50, 60, 70 years ago, there was also no clear understanding of the impact the manner in which they handled waste.



I also don't think profit is a bad thing. That is what most companies existence is based on. However if the sole purpose is to make money do you think that in the face of proof that they are severely damaging the environment that they would cease to do so? Or would they simply seek to distort the evidence?

In today's time, they would more likely seek to distort the evidence as you suggest. However I do believe that the current level of awareness in developed societies and nations is high enough that public outcry would be detrimental to a corporation's ability to profit if they knowingly abuse the environment with no attempt whatsoever to be clean. People who care, which should be all of us, would likely do what they can to not purchase from the abusing entity, IMO.


Is profit more important that environment? Was BP dumping millions of barrels of oil into the oceans a good thing? Are there or should there be any limitations on greed in a capitalist society?

Please don't misunderstand me. In no way was BP dumping millions of barrels of oil into the ocean a good thing. Nor do I believe that it was intentional. Furthermore, crude leaks into the ocean constantly with no assistance from man. That having been said, regardless of the involvement of the petrochemical industry, crude oil will still be released into the ocean. As far as limitations on greed, I really don't understand the question? You, or as the case of regulation is concerned, the government cannot control greed without serious disruption to the capitalist system. Government would have to implement regulations that would impede the ability of a corporation to be profitable at the expense of the tax payer. This issue in and of itself is outside the scope of this discussion and would require another forum for further debate.


Has there ever been any evidence that for profit corporations have policed themselves for the good of the environment excluding public relations campaigns?

I believe that if you search, you may find evidence of such behavior. Personally, I work for an organization that consumes a great deal of fossil fuel. In an effort to mitigate our impact to the environment, we use all commercially reasonable efforts to keep ourselves clean at the expense of profits. We pay more for fuel and use B20 bio-diesel in all of our equipment. Most of our company fleet cars are either hybrids or cars that exceed 25MPG. Is it in the news? Is it publicized for all to hear? No, but we are not a multi-billion dollar per year corporation and therefore out of the public eye. So, in this case a for profit corporation has, and will continue to police itself to be as gentle to the environment as possible.

[schminksbro]

The auto industry and coal industry, at least in the US, have become far more clean than they were at their inception.

These industries have only become as clean as regulations force them to be. The auto industry for example will increase mileage up to the mandate but not beyond. There are California emission standards that are much tighter than other states. The manufacturers apply the emission equipment to reach these standards only on vehicles sold in California. With the trend in deregulating and unlimited dollars being donated to political campaigns this type of behavior will only get worse.



In today's time, they would more likely seek to distort the evidence as you suggest. However I do believe that the current level of awareness in developed societies and nations is high enough that public outcry would be detrimental to a corporation's ability to profit if they knowingly abuse the environment with no attempt whatsoever to be clean. People who care, which should be all of us, would likely do what they can to not purchase from the abusing entity, IMO.

That is a good theory but consumers don't have a choice which oil or coal company they buy their product from. They don't even know where it comes from in nearly all cases. Without regulation forcing disclosure of or limiting of pollution the average consumer has no idea what these companies are doing.



I believe that if you search, you may find evidence of such behavior. Personally, I work for an organization that consumes a great deal of fossil fuel. In an effort to mitigate our impact to the environment, we use all commercially reasonable efforts to keep ourselves clean at the expense of profits. We pay more for fuel and use B20 bio-diesel in all of our equipment. Most of our company fleet cars are either hybrids or cars that exceed 25MPG. Is it in the news? Is it publicized for all to hear? No, but we are not a multi-billion dollar per year corporation and therefore out of the public eye. So, in this case a for profit corporation has, and will continue to police itself to be as gentle to the environment as possible.


I applaud your company for its' efforts. Now if we can get the other 99% on board.

[creefer]

Thanks, schmiksbro. I must say however that you appear to be an advocate of lots of regulation. Who pays for that? Certainly not the corporations regardless of their political fund donations.....more likely you and me. In my case, I'd rather hold my money and be a wise consumer than advocate more regulation that will ultimately cost more money. If it's my wise consumption that causes me to spend more on a product, so be it but I care not to pay for further regulations. But again, this may be out of the scope of this particular discussion considering its intent was to discuss reef health against "climate change".

[Wy Renegade]

To argue that climate change is not occuring is IMO akin to arguing that organisms do not adapt to their environment. It is my personal opinion that both the right and the left have reached consenses on the fact that it is occurring. Melting polar ice caps in the arctic, antarctic as well as melting glacial ice throughout the world is a bit difficult to argue with. Increased death rates in Polar bears as well as coral bleaching across the globe and impact on other organisms simply support the fact that it is occuring. IMHO, the question is no longer if climate change is occuring, but to what degree it is occuring, and to what degree we are responsible.

I agree that global warming cannot be considered in and of itself, pollution certainly plays a role as well. However we must keep in mind that we are by far and away not the only country involved to argue how clean industries in our country have become is truly of minimal significance in the face of countries like China and India leaping forward into their own industrial revolutions.

I would argue that some companies have policed themselves and done a good job of it, unfortunately they are in the minority. Government fines and penalties in this country as well as the world as a whole, are not nearly severe enough to detour multimillion dollars industries from polluting. When it is cheaper for a company like this to dump illegally and pay the fine when caught than it is to dispose of waste responsibly, the obvious result is illegal dumping on a grand scale.

Also, one must keep in mind that with issues like this, it is not within our ability as a country to impose our values and desires upon the world. This issue is one like whaling that has no clear boundaries or evidences to back it up, and so long as there are none, other countries as well as cooperations will debate the fact and prevent any significant effects to combat it from coming to fruition. Look at whaling as an example, look at the whaling industry. while most countries have agreed that many whale populations worldwide are in trouble and gotten on board with the agreement to suspend whaling operations there are still countries in which it is perfectly legal. And, as a country it is not within our abilities to impose our desires or our penalties upon these other countries. Many would prefer to believe that everyone agrees that our poor marine friends are in trouble and has accepted our decision that they are endangered and need to be protected. The truth of the matter is in fact far different.

[schminksbro]

These questions pertain to coral reefs because the Ph in the oceans is dropping. Most marine aquarists know that reduced Ph decreases calcification which is required for coral to grow. The drop in Ph is caused by green house gases and the biggest emitters of these gases are the burning of fossil fuels. Coral reefs are the home to most of the life in the ocean. Without them the oceanic ecosystem will collapse.

[creefer]

These questions pertain to coral reefs because the Ph in the oceans is dropping. Most marine aquarists know that reduced Ph decreases calcification which is required for coral to grow. The drop in Ph is caused by green house gases and the biggest emitters of these gases are the burning of fossil fuels. Coral reefs are the home to most of the life in the ocean. Without them the oceanic ecosystem will collapse.

There are other factors to greenhouse gasses. Fossil fuels are a large part however agriculture is as well. Wyrenegade brought up good points about ice caps melting. As a result, CO is being released at an alarming rate that was trapped in the ice actually making the situation worse. The US is only a minor part when you look at China and India as he accurately points out.

[schminksbro]

Thanks, schmiksbro. I must say however that you appear to be an advocate of lots of regulation. Who pays for that? Certainly not the corporations regardless of their political fund donations.....more likely you and me. In my case, I'd rather hold my money and be a wise consumer than advocate more regulation that will ultimately cost more money. If it's my wise consumption that causes me to spend more on a product, so be it but I care not to pay for further regulations. But again, this may be out of the scope of this particular discussion considering its intent was to discuss reef health against "climate change".

You are correct the tax payers would have to pay for the regulations. However who pays the price for a collapsed oceanic ecosystem? Those same tax payers do only the price is much higher. If as a wise consumer you had the choice of which companies you supported then the free market works. However in terms of fossil fuels there is no free market. I guess it comes down to whether you believe Exxon's profits are more important than your environment.

I am sure murder for hire is profitable for some but as a society we find it to be intolerable so we pass laws to protect our citizens. Why should industry be held to a different standard?

[schminksbro]

To argue that climate change is not occuring is IMO akin to arguing that organisms do not adapt to their environment. It is my personal opinion that both the right and the left have reached consenses on the fact that it is occurring. Melting polar ice caps in the arctic, antarctic as well as melting glacial ice throughout the world is a bit difficult to argue with. Increased death rates in Polar bears as well as coral bleaching across the globe and impact on other organisms simply support the fact that it is occuring. IMHO, the question is no longer if climate change is occuring, but to what degree it is occuring, and to what degree we are responsible.

I agree that global warming cannot be considered in and of itself, pollution certainly plays a role as well. However we must keep in mind that we are by far and away not the only country involved to argue how clean industries in our country have become is truly of minimal significance in the face of countries like China and India leaping forward into their own industrial revolutions.

I would argue that some companies have policed themselves and done a good job of it, unfortunately they are in the minority. Government fines and penalties in this country as well as the world as a whole, are not nearly severe enough to detour multimillion dollars industries from polluting. When it is cheaper for a company like this to dump illegally and pay the fine when caught than it is to dispose of waste responsibly, the obvious result is illegal dumping on a grand scale.

Also, one must keep in mind that with issues like this, it is not within our ability as a country to impose our values and desires upon the world. This issue is one like whaling that has no clear boundaries or evidences to back it up, and so long as there are none, other countries as well as cooperations will debate the fact and prevent any significant effects to combat it from coming to fruition. Look at whaling as an example, look at the whaling industry. while most countries have agreed that many whale populations worldwide are in trouble and gotten on board with the agreement to suspend whaling operations there are still countries in which it is perfectly legal. And, as a country it is not within our abilities to impose our desires or our penalties upon these other countries. Many would prefer to believe that everyone agrees that our poor marine friends are in trouble and has accepted our decision that they are endangered and need to be protected. The truth of the matter is in fact far different.

Well said Randy,

It is interesting that you bring up whaling. At one point Denmark was the top whale oil producer in the world. At that time Denmark was quite the world empire. As the whale population decreased they chose to expand their hunting grounds in search of more whales. This increased the cost of procuring the oil that they harvested from the whales. Instead of seeking a new fuel to maintain their empire they continued to expand their search further and further therefore increasing the costs more and more. At this point Great Britain began to mine coal and use it as their new primary energy source. The same thing happened. As they mined and burned all the coal in Britain the had to search further and further to keep supply. Instead of seeking a new energy source they kept chasing coal even at the expense of invading other countries and expanding their empire. Then comes the US with its' plentiful supply of oil. We are doing the same thing. Those empires collapsed because they failed to evolve and it collapsed their economy's and their empires. If we don't decide to be the developers of the next big energy source we will suffer the same fate. The investment in clean energy is an economic imperative as well as an ecological one. Being that we are the largest consumers of fossil fuels we can make a difference regardless of what other countries do.

[Werdlone]

@creefer..it is a breath of fresh air to hear a common voice in this argument. I couldn't agree with you more on all of your points. Corporations are the core of this country that create products, JOBS and the majority of the tax base that takes care of those that do not take part in the workforce. There is no evil leader of the "so called" corporation that says "we must mask our pollution that kills the planet with bribes and diversion!" muwaahaahaa!. People in this country are too informed and know better. Most corporations know that the best marketing is running clean. Most people in this country with a 401k or pension fund have their future dependent on the success of these companies. We should all be careful to make the corporation the enemy.

Pollution is a problem...address the issue, not the generality of the "corporation" being the bad guy. If you think corporations are bad..let the government take control...hmmm lets look back in history on this one...democracy->socialism->communism. I'll take freedom, land ownership, private corporations and the choice to not buy a product from a company that pollutes.

[schminksbro]

@creefer..it is a breath of fresh air to hear a common voice in this argument. I couldn't agree with you more on all of your points. Corporations are the core of this country that create products, JOBS and the majority of the tax base that takes care of those that do not take part in the workforce. There is no evil leader of the "so called" corporation that says "we must mask our pollution that kills the planet with bribes and diversion!" muwaahaahaa!. People in this country are too informed and know better. Most corporations know that the best marketing is running clean. Most people in this country with a 401k or pension fund have their future dependent on the success of these companies. We should all be careful to make the corporation the enemy.

Pollution is a problem...address the issue, not the generality of the "corporation" being the bad guy. If you think corporations are bad..let the government take control...hmmm lets look back in history on this one...democracy->socialism->communism. I'll take freedom, land ownership, private corporations and the choice to not buy a product from a company that pollutes.

Love Canal;)

[Wy Renegade]

The investment in clean energy is an economic imperative as well as an ecological one. Being that we are the largest consumers of fossil fuels we can make a difference regardless of what other countries do.

Indeed Andy, please don't take my previous post to imply that I feel that we should be doing nothing. Research has in fact shown that the environmental impact from a single family in the U.S. is almost 100 times greater than those of a family in a less developed country such as india. Our carbon footprint so to speak is significantly larger ;)

[schminksbro]

To argue that climate change is not occuring is IMO akin to arguing that organisms do not adapt to their environment. It is my personal opinion that both the right and the left have reached consenses on the fact that it is occurring.

Unfortunately there are posts in this thread already that dispute your assumption. The part I don't understand is that people are willing to risk being wrong on the issue. If we adjust our behavior as if climate change is happening then the result is a cleaner planet. If it turns out that climate change is in no way related to our behavior then no harm is done. However if we choose to change nothing and it turns out climate change is due to our behavior the consequences are enormous. I don't understand putting the future of mankind in the hands of transnational corporations based on faith that they care about the environment enough to police themselves. Seems like a pretty big gamble to me. I would rather bet that the Detroit Lions are going to win back to back Super Bowls starting next year. :thumbsup:

At this point I will step back a bit and let some others pipe in.

[creefer]

Unfortunately there are posts in this thread already that dispute your assumption. The part I don't understand is that people are willing to risk being wrong on the issue. If we adjust our behavior as if climate change is happening then the result is a cleaner planet. If it turns out that climate change is in no way related to our behavior then no harm is done. However if we choose to change nothing and it turns out climate change is due to our behavior the consequences are enormous. I don't understand putting the future of mankind in the hands of transnational corporations based on faith that they care about the environment enough to police themselves. Seems like a pretty big gamble to me. I would rather bet that the Detroit Lions are going to win back to back Super Bowls starting next year. :thumbsup:

At this point I will step back a bit and let some others pipe in.

After this post, I will also pipe down and let others chime in. I must say however that I think the US has plenty of regulations that are aimed at becoming more environmentally responsible. I personally think that your concerns, as valid as they may be, cannot be addressed within this country. As far as mankind in general is concerned, without centralized government world wide, control to the level of which you speak is not possible. Further, I would suggest that centralized government world wide is a bad idea.

[Werdlone]

Unfortunately there are posts in this thread already that dispute your assumption. The part I don't understand is that people are willing to risk being wrong on the issue. If we adjust our behavior as if climate change is happening then the result is a cleaner planet. If it turns out that climate change is in no way related to our behavior then no harm is done. However if we choose to change nothing and it turns out climate change is due to our behavior the consequences are enormous. I don't understand putting the future of mankind in the hands of transnational corporations based on faith that they care about the environment enough to police themselves. Seems like a pretty big gamble to me. I would rather bet that the Detroit Lions are going to win back to back Super Bowls starting next year. :thumbsup:

At this point I will step back a bit and let some others pipe in.



What impact does the plastics/ acrylic industry have on the environmnet?? Its production has a huge carbon footprint besides the toxicity of methyl methacrylate fumes and the multiple monomers used in acrylic production.;)

touche

As Michael Jackson sang it : "I'm starting with the man in the mirror..." lol

[schminksbro]

Fair enough. How quickly the gloves come off. ;) I purchase only american made acrylic which costs me substantially more than some of the imports. I do so because it supports jobs here in the states. However in a totally unregulated economy I don't have the right to know if the companies that make the acrylic purchase their chemicals from companies that prop up dictators, fight human rights, and recklessly pollute the environment. If I had the choice as a consumer of these products to choose between the cheaper unregulated company that does the listed things above and the little more expensive regulated company that doesn't then I would choose the latter. I am not arguing that we return to the Jeffersonian utopia of subsistence farming with slave labor. Nor am I arguing that we need to be a communist country. Our govt is intended to do what the people cannot do for themselves. As citizens we have no ability to regulate transnational corporations simply by being wise consumers.

What impact does the plastics/ acrylic industry have on the environmnet?? Its production has a huge carbon footprint besides the toxicity of methyl methacrylate fumes and the multiple monomers used in acrylic production.;)

touche

As Michael Jackson sang it : "I'm starting with the man in the mirror..." lol

[Werdlone]

Point well taken. My point was to not pick and choose what industry to demonize. Our whole economy is petroleum based. From clothing to agriculture to manufacturing, medical equipment...you name it. Oil companies are not the bad guy...we all are if, in fact, it is causing global warming (which is only a theory and not proven). We are exxon, we are BP. Lets not be hypocrits. We all use their products everyday and rely on them. We should always be looking for alternatives and ways to be cleaner and more efficient. But don't crush our economy and way of life over unproven data.

this is my last post in this thread...not worth the frustration or friction with others. I'll leave it to polititians and vote my opinion.

[creefer]

I applaud your viewpoint and completely agree with you. Very well stated, Werdlone.


Point well taken. My point was to not pick and choose what industry to demonize. Our whole economy is petroleum based. From clothing to agriculture to manufacturing, medical equipment...you name it. Oil companies are not the bad guy...we all are if, in fact, it is causing global warming (which is only a theory and not proven). We are exxon, we are BP. Lets not be hypocrits. We all use their products everyday and rely on them. We should always be looking for alternatives and ways to be cleaner and more efficient. But don't crush our economy and way of life over unproven data.

this is my last post in this thread...not worth the frustration or friction with others. I'll leave it to polititians and vote my opinion.

[schminksbro]

I will let that be the last word and close the thread. If any of you would like to continue the discussion it can be reopened.