I agree. The Great Barrier Reef is in good condition. Increased sediment from the Abbott Point expansion is not likely to do significant harm.

But…

We should NOT be enormously expanding our coal exports to the extent that a tripling of the size of the current Abbott Point terminal would be needed. Nor anything like it.

Surely the rate of coal exports is high enough as it is!

The recent 4 Corners program concentrated on the effects on the reef of the very large dredging exercise that would be needed for this expansion, and on the apparent contradictions between what the scientists were saying and what was approved by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. But it only just cursorily mentioned that some of the argument stems from opposition to coal expansion from the opening up of the Galilee Basin, with new mines of the magnitude we have never seen before.

But surely this is what really matters here. We need to get right away from this constant expansionist mentality and get our heads around the imperative to achieve a stable population and a sustainable society.

< Australia now faces a developing economic crisis that may well become the most serious in our history. >

Yes! So what should we be doing? Digging up coal at an ever-faster rate in order to boost our export income, and continue to rapidly grow our population so that any increase in this export income goes straight into providing infrastructure and services for ever-more people rather than into real improvements for the current population?

Should we just be pushing forward with exactly the same approach that has led to this precarious economic crisis?

It is ABSOLUTELY time to start pulling back on our addiction to fossil fuels.

A STOP to the expansion of coal mining and the Abbott Pt port would be a very good place to start.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
2014: Dr Walter Starck has a PhD in marine science including post graduate training and professional experience in fisheries biology.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
2024: Heretic Walter Starck was an infidel, beheaded by the Green-State for defamation of Gaia.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Dear Ludwig,

Yes, it is time to start pulling back on our addiction to fossil fuels, but not for stupid reasons such as the CO2 hoax.

Consider all that fossil-based energy burnt to maintain the lifestyle of the "climate science" clergy and all those Shaheeds flying around to international "climate-change" conferences, using nothing but fossil fuel.

I wrote:

>> Should we just be pushing forward with exactly the same approach that has led to this precarious economic crisis? <<

That should have been; ‘situation’, not crisis. We aren’t in an economic crisis … … … yet!

.

Yuyutsu, you wrote:

<< Yes, it is time to start pulling back on our addiction to fossil fuels, but not for stupid reasons such as the CO2 hoax. >>

I certainly don’t accept AGW as a hoax. Far from it. But yes, we should be pulling right back on our absolute addiction to fossil fuels for reasons completely separate to climate change. It has got be about energy supply and demand capability, and the effects on our economy and society of having an energy regime that is going to be much more expensive and difficult than the current oil, coal and gas-based regime.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people who are concerned about the impacts of all of this get hung up on addressing symptoms, or relatively minor side issues, such as the effect of dredging on the reef, and don’t put anywhere near enough effort into addressing the big picture!

I have always said to my environmental mates; please, put at least half of your energies into addressing the big picture of a sustainable society and planet. But alas, it just doesn’t happen. And consequently they fail. They may be successful in stopping some environmentally damaging projects here and there. But overall they just lose. Damn pity that is.

There are plenty of people out there who are concerned about what is happening with our fossil fuel addiction, ever-rapidly-growing population and ever-more precarious economic situation. But they just aren’t getting stuck into addressing it in anything like a united manner. Again, damn pity that is.

Dr Starck's article makes excellent sense. The reef has supposedly been under threat of imminent destruction ever since I can remember but its still there. However, just try to convince the end-of-the-world crowd that shifting a bunch of sediment from one spot to another 80 kilometers of so from the main reef is no big deal and see what happens? They must have a sense of crisis and the facts don't matter..

Maybe it's time for more tourists to escape GBR controversies, and head south to where it remains a "Wonderful World"!

http://youtu.be/i90I5HuNOTk

" It's the science, not the reef, that is being polluted".

The author is correct. But try to convince the ABC and other Left-wing media outlets -- regrettably they have closed minds on this issue

An excellent post that exposes the vulgarity of the 'GBR crowd. I can only applaud the Chinese and Indian governments responsible for the huge increases in affordable energy they are providing for their populations. The millions of people being lifted from abject poverty to a dignified standard of living and life for them and their children is nothing short of a miracle.

Walter thanks for a great article. I wonder if simple facts can convince any indoctrinated greenies. I have tried to explain to greenies that compared to the silt that comes from the Fitzroy & Berdican in even a minor fresh, all the dredging's by us since European settlement through out Oz is just a drop in ocean. A quick look at all the hundreds of square miles of mud banks in Keppel bay confirm that.

I have sailed the waters, & built jetties on atolls a hundred miles from any solid bit of land, & anchored many nights in reef waters not far from Abbott point. I could see my anchor lying on the bottom at Net reef, just as I could at Kapingamarangi, a couple of hundred miles from anywhere.

Luddy you regularly go off about fossil fuels, but you have never given any logical reason. Surely it can't be because of a few drill holes, or the small, in the scope of the continent or planet, holes left from coal extraction.

With no real reason given I can only assume it is an emotional response, or a dislike of the energy that has given us, including you & your greenie mates, our pleasant & safe lifestyle. After all it is only fossil fuels that has allowed us peasants to gain a university education, then travel the country, & the world following our profession.

Now I agree we should be limiting population, particularly in Oz, but also on the planet. However forcing people to live without the comfort, health care, support & food that we have enjoyed doesn't attract me much to the cause.

It is only by the grace of fossil fuels that we are not still digging holes by hand to plant seed, & praying for rain.

I have lived the simple life, where 10 gallons of petrol/diesel & 20 pounds of gas [LPG] would supply all my needs for 3 months, but had I suffered any of my heart attacks out there I would not have survived. Whishing that on people is a bit harsh

So Luddy please explain in simple terms, what is wrong with using our fossil fuels for the good of all.

Hasbeen.
"Now I agree we should be limiting population". Whilst this is a laudable objective, the method of doing so is the difficulty. Much reading later, the only methods I have found that are successful in doing so are:
(a) allow the latest plague affecting African States to be 'let loose', similar to 'the plague' that affected Europe at the time of Justinian.
(B) instigate the Chinese solution with 1 child per couple and try to cope with the attendant unintended consequences and
(c) harness the by product of cheap available energy, most immediately in the form of coal, to generate wealth, resulting in a commensurate self directed reduction in the birth rate as demonstrated by most of Europe, Japan etc.

Yes Prompete,. I can only agree.

If China, India & some other countries were wealthy enough to afford an old age pension, I think the population growth problem would quickly become a thing of the past, as it would be here, if we had a more reasonable immigration plan.

Of course that means energy, & a little less war between religious groups.

One can only hope.

Meanwhile wouldn't it be good to get some sense from our academics. I had quite a bit of contact with some while setting up & running reef tourism. Most of them were such dills it was not worth discussing anything with them.

It transpired most of their research was conducted in little tanks behind the office. A couple of tourist operators had to help them with techniques to get any success with getting things in tanks to live long enough to get even doubtful results.

I also supported a number of PhD students, doing research out on the reef, with transport, tinnies & accommodation at our facility. Most of them were quite smart, & did good work. I wonder if that continued when they needed university posts?

I was hoping they would find walking on the reef was damaging, & get it banned. When you have a busy day, with over 200 people walking on the reef, the budget for Mercurochrome to put on the cuts is huge. Unfortunately they found no difference where we walked tourists to anywhere else.

I am always amused by cries of damage to the reef when a ship runs aground. Hardy reef lagoon, where we operated is over 7000 acres, & Hook, & Line reefs in the same area have semi enclosed lagoon each. Judging by the amount of guano the birds could cover our pontoon with in a couple of days with no people, they'd love a few wrecks to perch on at night.

Each ship travelling the length of the Inner Route has an allowance of 400 litres loss of oil into the water. Some 6000 tourists a day slapping on an average of 100ml of sunscreen ? Well, do your own maths.
Last time I posted Dr Starck's writing on olo absolutely no interest was shown about a year ago. What happened since ? Is the bandwagon being refurbished for our academics ?
The Ok Tedi Gold mine in PNG also supplies the northern reefs with chemicals & other poison.
The reefs at the northern GBR are ever so slowly silting up.

<< Luddy you regularly go off about fossil fuels, but you have never given any logical reason. >>

Hells bells Hazza, you and I have been bumping heads over this issue for ages on this forum. How can you possibly say that I haven’t given a reason? C’mawwwn!

You surely know perfectly well what the core of my argument is.

Our staggeringly huge and ever-rapidly growing global demand for energy versus finite fossil fuel resources, which for oil at least; the supply capability is set to become a little precarious in the near future, compared to the demand, leading to escalating prices, which will stress out our economy and many peoples’ personal economics and quality of life long before there is an actual shortage of supply.

Think along those lines.

You agree that we should be limiting population. So does that mean you agree that we should be striving to stop the demand for energy from ever-increasing? Or do you have some other motive?

Luddy mate, I still don't get it.

Why the hell, if the supply is going to stop in a few years, causing immense hardship to many, would you want to bring it on earlier than necessary. Surely better to bring on the extra cost naturally, over a longer period, allowing the transition to methane clathrate, or what ever proves the most economical replacement.

Individual, surely you have seen, & smelt the accumulation of dead coral spore washed up on every leeward beach each year, after the spawning. It that little bit of oil was not removed naturally those same beaches would be covered with it.

I used to carry up to 750 tourists around the place, & rarely saw much sunscreen. Tourists spend most of their time in air conditioned boats or bars, rather than the big nasty ocean. Sunscreen is for around swimming pools.

Yes the reef is very slowly silting up. Nature changes the landscape. 10,000 years ago aboriginals were chasing kangaroos around the low hills where the reef is now awash. It might be a vegetable garden in another 10,000 years, & I'm not going to worry about that either. Life is too short to worry about minor things like the Great barrier Reef coming or going.

Walter Starck say's, "The GBR is in excellent condition and under no threat."
But where is scientific evidence of that general unscientific claim documented?

The GBR consists primarily of dead coral rising from the seabed and of course that mass of dead coral reef is in excellent condition.
As for living coral, how can live GBR coral be in excellent condition and under no threat when it is generally known COTS is killing coral?
It is known to science that increase in COTS larvae survival is linked to increase in available nutrients.

There is no mention in articles by Walter Starck about the total nutrient loading entering GBR waters from all sources, including from southern city and town sewage dumped daily, including any loading in part being transported northwards by the Australian east coast sediment dispersal system.
There is no scientific evidence dissolved nutrients bonded to fresher water sink down with heavy sand solid matter at Fraser Island, or that lighter solid nutrient matter sinks down with sand at Fraser Island.

At least some Australian east coast fresher nutrient loaded surface water from sewage continues northward into GBR waters, yet farmers are being blamed for the nutrients.
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2112/08-1120.1?journalCode=coas&

If the GBR was in excellent condition and under no threat, in these days it would be a unique situation in the whole world.
Walter Starck comes from Florida USA where coral cover on Florida reefs has declined 80 percent in the past three decades, according to a reputable source.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/programs/coral/threats.htm

N.B "Large coastal infrastructure projects".

While I support sensible development including large infrastructure projects, there is writing on the wall that needs to be seen and not ignored.

There is also GBR ecosystem seagrass devastation impact on food for SW Pacific Ocean tuna stocks now reported at historically low levels and in steep decline.
Overall Queensland and NSW coast seagrass food web nursery devastation and impact needs to be seen.

Ignorance of nutrient pollution and consequences of collapse of sustainable free or low cost seafood protein for seafood dependent SW Pacific Islands indigenous people should be/is a crime.

that little bit of oil was not removed naturally those same beaches would be covered with it.
Hasbeen,
You've hit the nail on the head. I think the reef removes or rather absorbes the pollution before it gets to the shore hence some of the reefs lacking their usual pristine luster.

<< Why the hell, if the supply is going to stop in a few years, causing immense hardship to many, would you want to bring it on earlier than necessary. Surely better to bring on the extra cost naturally, over a longer period, allowing the transition to methane clathrate, or what ever proves the most economical replacement. >>

Haz, if the supply of oil is going to become problematic in a few years, it will indeed cause immense hardship. So we want to avoid this crunch point and smoothly transition to a new energy regime, if possible.

But in order to do this, we would need to make the lead-up to the potential crunch point more expensive in order to promote the R&D of other energy sources. A bit more pain now will hopefully allow us to avoid enormous pain in the near future.

It is certainly NOT better to let the cost increases just come along ‘naturally’ as the price of oil goes up due to ever-increasing costs of extraction, greater competition or shortage of supply. If we let costs just increase due to market forces as our energy becomes more expensive, we will almost definitely face rapid increases in prices, and consequent big upheavals in our economy and society. It won’t happen slowly over a long period.

But if we plan ahead, with an increase in prices now and more effort going into alternative energy sources, then future increases in prices will happen much more slowly and gently.

I see a strange mixture in what you have written, between planning for a new energy regime, and not planning for it and just letting it all happen only when we are forced into it.

In the early 1960's at Heron Island I met a scientist studying impact of oil on coral and he said there appeared to be no impact as oil floats on top of water and coral is underwater.

Evidence of substance indicates it's nutrient overload pollution that is causing the majority of damage to coral and especially to seagrass but the matter is not being duly discussed or disproved.

Ignore nutrient overload management and let damaging development go ahead for bigger bucks eh, instead of a little more expensive eco-friendly AND sustainable development, including commercially producing biofuel from algae proliferated by human waste?

I have observed the area after trawlers have worked all night from a boat & from the air & I found cartons floating around, beer cans, cigarette packets, oil slicks etc & to top it all off the mud & silt took all of the next day to settle & then the cycle started again at 6 pm. That was in area totally out of the way where no-ne actually goes besides the trawlers, an area so remote that no tourist boats have ever been to until this day yet the impact of commercialsim is ever-present.
The good people who do nothing want their prawns & fish so there you go. But, the good people who do no harm blame the commercial operators for damaging the environment & hand out hefty fines to the operators. So, the operators then go at it even harder to cover the cost of the fines. Does anyone really give a crap about the environment ? Well, it seems the good people who do nothing do as long as someone else makes the effort at someone else's expense.