30/01/2022

(AU The Guardian) Great Barrier Reef On Verge Of Another Mass Bleaching After Highest Temperatures On Record

The Guardian

Exclusive: ‘Shocked and concerned’ US government scientists say heat stress over Australia’s ocean jewel is unprecedented

File photo of coral bleaching. Scientists at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration say the Great Barrier Reef headed into the summer with more accumulated heat than ever before. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images

Temperatures over the Great Barrier Reef in December were the highest on record with “alarming” levels of heat that have put the ocean jewel on the verge of another mass bleaching of corals, according to analysis from US government scientists seen by Guardian Australia.

On Friday the Morrison government announced $1bn for reef conservation over the next nine years if it wins the next election – a pledge branded by some as a cynical attempt to stop the reef being placed on the world heritage “in danger” list at a meeting in July.

Conservationists and scientists mostly welcomed the pledge, but many said the government needed to greatly improve its greenhouse gas emissions targets and stop supporting fossil fuel projects.

In the three months leading up to 14 December, an analysis from scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) says heat stress over the corals reached a level “unprecedented in the satellite record” for that time of year.

According to the analysis, temperatures were so hot that between mid-November and mid-December, the minimum temperatures over more than 80% of the reef were higher for that period than previous maximums.

Dr William Skirving, of Noaa’s Coral Reef Watch, said his team “were surprised, shocked and concerned” when the analysis, covering each year from 1985, was completed.

“There’s never been heat stress like that in our records. It’s completely out of character and speaks to the fact that the minimum temperatures were higher than the previous maximums. This is almost certainly a climate change signal.

“Being a scientist in this field in this day and age is sometimes a bit nightmarish. Sometimes I wish I knew a little bit less.”

As greenhouse gas emissions accumulate in the atmosphere, the world’s oceans are getting hotter, and scientists say coral bleaching will become more frequent in the short term, whatever happens to emissions.

The 2,300km reef has seen five mass bleaching events – in 1998, 2002, 2016, 2017 and 2020 – all caused by rising ocean temperatures driven by global heating.

According to the Noaa analysis, which has not been peer reviewed but has been accepted to a scientific journal, the reef headed into the summer with “more accumulated heat than ever before”.

Average water temperatures in mid-December were at least 0.5C hotter than the corresponding period for any previous summer when the reef bleached.

The peak period for heat stress tends to be in late February and March.

Corals get most of their food and colour from the algae that live within them. But if temperatures get too high, the algae separates and leaves the animal bleached white.

Corals can recover from mild bleaching but are weaker, more susceptible to disease and reproduce less in the following years.

Dr Mark Read, the assistant director of reef protection at the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, said: “The impact is considered minor at this point, however we are watching conditions closely, recognising the heat accumulation in the system.”

There were reports of heat-stressed corals and some bleaching from offshore reefs between Cooktown and Mackay and inshore reefs near Townsville.

“The risk of broad-scale coral bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef is reliant on weather conditions over the next couple of weeks,” he said.

Extended periods of cloud cover, rainfall and wind could all help reduce temperatures, he said.

The Bureau of Meteorology meteorologist Shane Kennedy said monsoonal conditions could deliver cloud and rain in the coming week, but this could clear south of Cairns in the coming days.

Associate Prof Tracy Ainsworth, a coral biologist at the University of New South Wales, said cloud cover could reduce the extra stress on corals from sunlight.

“It’s sad we’re in a position where we’re hoping for conditions that minimise coral mortality.”

Prof Jodie Rummer, a Townsville-based marine biologist, said some corals were bleaching at Magnetic Island, near Townsville.

“I’m concerned for the reef and this funding pledge feels a bit like a last-ditch effort [to stop the reef being listed as in danger],” she said.

Scott Morrison views the reef from a glass bottom boat during a visit to the Great Barrier Reef. Photograph: Brian Cassey/AAP

On Friday the prime minister, Scott Morrison, was in Cairns to announce the funding which, if his government was re-elected, would target projects across water quality, pollution, illegal fishing and outbreaks of coral-eating starfish.

Reef health monitoring, habitat restoration and scientific research into making corals and habitats more resilient would also be funded.

The world heritage committee is due to decide in July whether to place the reef on its “in danger” list.

Australian government’s plan to protect Great Barrier Reef falls short, environment groups say. Read more
Unesco science advisers recommended the listing last year, and the $1bn pledge comes just days before a 1 February deadline for the government to send a progress report to Unesco.

Associate professor Mike Van Keulen, the chair of marine science at Murdoch University, described the Coalition’s pledge as “a cynical token action”.

Conservation groups have long called for extra funding to improve water conditions over the reef, which experts say can improve the health of corals and give them a better chance of surviving as temperatures rise.

Richard Leck, the head of oceans at WWF-Australia, said the pledge was “positive news for our national icon” and would keep funding at broadly their current levels.

“Progress on reducing water pollution has fallen behind the government’s targets to protect the reef, so it’s vital that this investment is applied in a way that markedly improves water quality.”

But he said it “needs to be complimented by real action on climate to drive down emissions this decade”.

Dr Anita Cosgrove, a Queensland campaigner with the Wilderness Society, said the package was “insufficient to overcome the breadth of challenges”.

The Australian Academy of Science president, John Shine, said global heating threatened the reef’s “extraordinary variety of habitats and species”.

The Australian Marine Conservation Society water quality expert, Jaimi Webster, said funding to address water pollution and illegal fishing was welcome, but insufficient.

Gavan McFadzean, of the Australian Conservation Foundation, said: “A government that is fair dinkum about protecting the Great Barrier Reef would urgently phase out coal, oil and gas – and would not continue to subsidise the growth of fossil fuel industries – to give the reef a chance to survive.”

‘Dancing through the water’: rare sighting of blanket octopus in Great Barrier Reef. Read more
The Queensland Conservation Council director, Dave Copeman, also said the government’s support for fossil fuel projects was putting the reef under threat. 

Labor’s deputy leader, Richard Marles, questioned whether the Morrison government would follow through on its $1bn pledge.

“This is a prime minister who throughout his time in office has completely failed to take any meaningful action on climate change,” he said, adding “you cannot take action on the reef without being serious on climate change, and Scott Morrison is not”.

The Greens senator for Queensland, Larissa Waters, said: “A belated cash splash on the Great Barrier Reef is a joke from a government that has turbo-charged the climate crisis imperilling the reef by giving billions to fossil fuels and backing new coal and gas.”

Morrison’s pledge was also criticised by one of his own backbenchers. The Queensland Liberal National party senator Gerard Rennick told the ABC it was “unnecessary funding” that was only aimed at “appeasing the United Nations”.

Links

(AU ABC) $1b Plan To Save Great Barrier Reef Will Fail Without Climate Change Action, Expert Says

ABC North Qld | Zilla Gordon

The Great Barrier Reef as seen from above on a stunning day.
Reactions to the government's funding announcement have been mixed.(Facebook: Great Barrier Reef Legacy)

Key Points
  • Labor says the government has had 10 years to try and restore the health of the Great Barrier Reef
  • A marine biologist says the funding won't help much without broader action on climate change
  • A dive business operator says the reef can be nursed back to health and has welcomed the announcement
The Morrison government's billion-dollar plan to save the Great Barrier Reef has been criticised by a scientist who says it will mean nothing if global carbon emissions are not reduced.

The nine-year plan announced today in Cairns is the biggest single investment ever made in the reef and will support the development of technology and water management practices.

It comes after the 344,400-square-kilometre ecosystem narrowly avoided being listed as "in danger" by UNESCO last year.

James Cook University marine biology associate professor Jodie Rummer said she felt underwhelmed by the commitment.

"Without a mention of climate change in this announcement … it's not looking great," she said.
"We need to be putting resources and money – $1 billion – towards net zero by 2035 and to reducing our emissions by 75 per cent in this decade."
A woman stands in an aquarium building with her arms crossed.
Jodie Rummer says the reef will be doomed without more action on climate change.(ABC News: Travis Mead)

Dr Rummer said Australia was not doing enough to address climate change.

"We're barrelling towards two-degree warming," she said.

"What we've already seen with one and 1.2 degrees of global warming is three million heat waves within five years resulting in 98 per cent bleaching on reefs worldwide.

"This is isn't just isolated to Australia — it's a problem worldwide."

Bleached coral next to healthy coral, with fish swimming by.
Coral bleaching at Magnetic Island. (Supplied: Victor Huertas)

'Better late than never'

Paul Crocombe runs a dive business in Townsville and has been working on the reef for more than 40 years.

He welcomed today's announcement, saying it was "better late than never".

Mr Crocombe's biggest concern was water quality.

"We get drought, we get a lot of exposed soil, and they we'll get a cyclone and a flood and that soil will wash down into the ocean," he said.

Mr Crocombe hoped people would become more aware that what they washed down their drains ultimately affected the reef.

He also felt many believed the reef was beyond repair, but he said the reef had the potential to be "very good for a long time" provided it was properly cared for.

"I don't think it's too late," he said.

Terri Butler says the reef wouldn't be in such bad shape if "real action" had been taken earlier. (News Video)

Labor lashes government's timing 

Opposition Environment spokeswoman Terri Butler said she viewed today's announcement as an admission of failure from the government.

"Their only policy to date has been giving half a billion dollars to a tiny charity behind closed doors in a backroom deal and clearly they're admitting that hasn't been enough," she said.

Ms Butler said if the government had taken "real action" on climate change the reef's health would not be in such steep decline.

"This is a government that is desperately trying to scrabble in relation to the reef after a decade of mismanagement," she said.
"This is a government that turned up to Glasgow this year with nothing more than a pamphlet."
Australia avoids Great Barrier Reef
global embarrassment
Let's strip away the politics and look at the facts — the things that actually matter to the reef. Read more
Ms Butler said Labor supported immediate action, but would not comment on whether the party would match the $1b commitment.

"The government's announcement is for funding over 10 years,'" she said.

"We don't even know how much of this money is suppose to be spent immediately and how much is spent in year seven, eight, or nine."

Labor has pledged to spend $163 million, including an additional $63m to the Reef 2050 program.

At the moment the plan is only funded until 2023/24.

Shadow Treasurer Jim Chalmers said the Prime Minster had turned an environmental issue into a political one and that Australians would see through the timing of the announcement.

"We know that Scott Morrison doesn't care about the reef — if he did he would have done something about it over the last decade the Liberals and Nationals have been in office," he said.

Scott Morrison stands in a courtyard with a wry smile on his face.
Scott Morrison says the funding comes in addition to billions already spent on the reef.(ABC News: David Sciasci)

PM reaffirms climate commitments

When asked if the funding adequate and whether the government should have focused on reaching net zero by 2030, Mr Morrison said the reef had always been a priority.

"We've committed to net zero by 2050 and we've reduced emissions by over 20 per cent," he said.
"We're so proud of our reef and we can be proud that Australia leads the world in reef management."
 Youtube Great Barrier Reef dodges 'danger' status

Mr Morrison said the funding came on top of $2b already invested in its sustainability plan.

"We are backing the health of the reef and the economic future of tourism operators, hospitality providers and Queensland communities [who] are at the heart of the reef economy," he said.

Links

(USA NYT) Judges Increasingly Demand Climate Analysis In Drilling Decisions

New York TimesLisa Friedman

A federal judge this week required the government take climate change into account before approving offshore oil drilling leases. That’s becoming more common.

A federal judge ruled on Thursday that the Biden administration had acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” when it conducted an auction of offshore leases. Credit...Education Images/Universal Images Group, via Getty Images

WASHINGTON — A judge’s decision this week to invalidate the largest offshore oil and gas lease sale in the nation’s history, on grounds that the government had failed to take climate change into consideration, shows that regulatory decisions that disregard global warming are increasingly vulnerable to legal challenges, analysts said Friday.

Judge Rudolph Contreras of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled on Thursday that the Biden administration had acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” when it conducted an auction of more than 80 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Interior Department failed to fully analyze the climate effects of the burning of the oil and gas that would be developed from the leases, the judge said.

The ruling is one of a handful over the past year in which a court has required the government to conduct a more robust study of climate change effects before approving fossil fuel development. Analysts said that, cumulatively, the decisions would ensure that future administrations are no longer able to disregard or downplay global warming.

“This would not have been true 10 years ago for climate analysis,” said Richard Lazarus, a professor of environmental law at Harvard University.

He said it is “a big win” that courts are forcing government agencies to include “a very robust and holistic analysis of climate” as part of the decision-making when it comes to whether or not to drill on public lands and waters.

Emissions from fossil fuel extraction on public lands and in federal waters account for about 25 percent of the country’s greenhouse gases.

Shell, BP, Chevron and Exxon Mobil offered $192 million for the rights to drill in about 1.7 million acres in the area offered by the government in the Nov. 17 lease sale. The leases have not yet been issued.

Judge Contreras said the government had relied upon an outdated and flawed analysis from the Trump administration, which argued that not holding the lease sale would result in higher greenhouse gas emissions because oil companies overseas would increase their production to fill a vacuum in the market.

He called reliance on that analysis a “serious failing” and ordered a new study under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, which says the government must consider ecological damage when deciding whether to permit drilling and construction projects.

The judge reached the same conclusion as judges for both the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and the District Court for the District of Alaska in cases within the past two years concerning lease sales based on a similar analysis.

“This is continuing to set an established precedent that NEPA requires a greenhouse gas analysis,” said Collin O’Mara, the president of the National Wildlife Foundation. “This just continues to show the damage that we’re doing by allowing federal leasing to go on.”

Keith Hall, director of the energy law center at Louisiana State University, cautioned that having to show the impacts of climate change does not necessarily mean fossil fuel development will come to a standstill.

A future administration could show the full impacts of climate change in a lease sale decision and still legally decide that economic benefits outweigh the climate dangers.

“An administration more friendly to the fossil fuel industry could still go forward,” Mr. Hall said. “Weighing the pros and cons is ultimately a policy decision.”

The Biden administration is now in an awkward position of deciding whether to appeal the ruling.

As a candidate, Mr. Biden promised to stop issuing new leases for drilling on public lands and in federal waters. Shortly after taking office, he signed an executive order to pause the issuing of new leases.

But after Republican attorneys general from 13 states sued, a federal judge in Louisiana blocked that order, and also ruled that the administration must hold lease sales in the Gulf that had already been scheduled by the Trump administration.

The Biden administration went forward with the sale in November, despite arguments by environmental activists that the Interior Department could have done more to prevent or reduce the size of the lease sale.

In a statement Melissa Schwartz, a spokeswoman for the Interior Department, said the agency was reviewing the decision.

“We have documented serious deficiencies in the federal oil and gas program,” Ms. Schwartz said. “Especially in the face of the climate crisis, we need to take the time to make significant and long overdue programmatic reforms.”

Analysts said they expected the Biden administration to let the ruling stand.

“They’re not spilling a lot of tears over this one, since it’s a big lease sale done by Trump that they obviously wanted to pause,” Mr. Lazarus said.

That opens up a question of whether the oil companies that purchased leases, the trade groups representing them, or the Republican states suing the Biden administration’s effort to block new leases, could appeal.

Mr. Hall said he believed they could.

“The defendants are impacted enough that they would have standing to appeal,” he said.

In a statement, the Louisiana solicitor general, Elizabeth Murrill, said the state was “exploring potential legal remedies” to the court decision.

Links