Moderator
Global Climate Change as it Relates to Coral Reefs
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
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.
I thought this thread might have more activity than it has.....
i agree with creefer 100%
It takes a long long time to build a coral reef. Step by step the reefs survive on partnerships. And the most important partners are you and I.
CR Member
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.Originally Posted by Werdlone
Moderator
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.
Moderator
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
