A different box jelly is one of the most deadly animals on earth, often killing humans in minutes.
This one is beautiful. Gotta get to the Great Barrier Reef before it all bleaches!
*doublepromote

I liked it. A bit heavy handed, but pretty. Like a reef under uv light.

Offset? How cute, you think they’ll try to offset their massive carbon footprint.

…and how will they get all that jet fuel to refuel those (mostly private) jets and to provide power for the resort? By barging it across that reef. No other option. There will be spills, the reef will die, then there’s no reason for it to exist at all.

I hope this monument to opulence fails miserably and the developers lose their shirts.
There’s no way they won’t damage or destroy that reef.
The first big storm is going to destroy much of the sand island.
But, 10% are special protection zones! Won’t matter, they can’t survive if huge amounts of the non protected reef are destroyed.

Not to mention sea level rise will put it underwater quickly, it’s barely above current sea level in the plans.

Look at Mexico, dozens of comparatively tiny resorts not even on the reefs, but on land, and that reef is not 10% what it was in the mid 80’s. Building ON the reef is guaranteed to destroy it, as is tourism.

I hate when companies are allowed to build on natural wonders to exploit the beauty, they invariably destroy that beauty within decades. That entire reef/coastline should be off limits to construction so the two desert properties have an attraction. When the reefs die from sun tan lotion poisoning, bleaching, sand displacement, accidents with supply ships, the first major fuel spill, etc, that place will be a $5 billion waste, abandoned to the desert.

Remember the “islands of the world” project in Dubai? This sounds even less thought out than they were, more ecologically disastrous, needing more infrastructure to be built, requiring ships to bring fuel as there’s no nearby port to run pipelines from (guaranteeing oil spills). All for what? So billionaires can get off their yachts for a while in luxury?

Wiki-Significant changes in the maritime environment [of Dubai]. As a result of the dredging and redepositing of sand for the construction of the islands, the typically crystalline waters of the Persian Gulf at Dubai have become severely clouded with silt. Construction activity is damaging the marine habitat, burying coral reefs, oyster beds and subterranean fields of sea grass, threatening local marine species as well as other species dependent on them for food. Oyster beds have been covered in as much as two inches of sediment, while above the water, beaches are eroding with the disruption of natural currents.

That was a $12 billion project to exploit the pristine coast and beautiful waters that no longer exist, the islands themselves are sinking and eroding, most were evacuated or never used at all, the water is now mud colored, the reefs are gone. An unmitigated disaster. This sounds extremely similar.

Oppose this and similar projects.

I do….and I can list reasons why I think what I think, unlike yourself who is embarrassed to admit you never actually think yourself and all your arguments come from disgraced and debunked liars who’s jobs are to lie, almost exclusively when it comes to any political topic.

The ship only turns so fast. It needed SO much correction on SO many issues because the last demander in chief refused to steer the nation anywhere but into a reef for the last entire year of his term….the last 3 months totally intentionally while he drilled holes in the keel and cut holes in the sails.

The nation certainly needed serious and immediate correction. Glad to hear you admit it, even accidentally.
You’re complaining about more spending!? You must be joking! Compared to spendthrift Trump, he’s a fucking miser. Every major project he’s put forward has been paid for in the bill, not so with the last administration that thought they couldn’t overspend because they can print more money….the biggest deficit and fastest debt rise (both by dollar and percentage) EVER by a mile. And put us in a recession with high inflation, negative GDP, outrageous unemployment, and near a million dead for the privilege. Joe invested in American infrastructure. Complaining about spending will not be tolerated from you after supporting Trump. Not for a second, you unbelievable hypocrite.

He did many things, leading to a healthy economy and amazing jobs numbers and rising wages among other improvements. All work against inflation.

But you like to say he’s done nothing, so how’s 4 examples on the Afghanistan disaster alone work for you?
He negotiated 6 more months to be gone.
He evacuated any and all Americans that wanted out, including those that waited until the last day.
He set up and staffed new systems (granted too little and late) to assist Afghans that worked for us in getting at least refugee status if not visas. This should have been step 1 in February 2020….likely a big surprise to find nothing started or planned when Joe took office.
He pulled out billions worth of functioning, still owned by America weaponry (what you love to whine about is the weapons in Afghani’s hands, and decommissioned often scuttled vehicles we abandoned….yes, a waste) that before he took office were being left in country.
Simply put, he made a plan and implemented it, can’t say the same for his predecessor. It wasn’t perfect, but it was something….which is a massive improvement.

He’s a mile above the low bar set by your idol, who spent nearly a full 1/3 of his presidency off playing golf (after promising not to play at all), and >1/2 of every day on personal executive time eating junk food and watching TV (but only ever taking softball questions from far right outlets, refusing any non right wing reporters a question much less interview). The remaining 1/6 was largely filled with rage tweeting and executive toilet time (pooping or shredding, you choose).

Your position is old, dementia ridden, no leadership, no question taking, slow, incapable of speaking or thinking, doesn’t know who or where he is Joe kicked fat lazy dumb Don’s ass without even holding rallies, did it in his pjs without breaking a sweat or raising his voice. Odd you love to constantly degrade the guy who’s by every measure head and shoulders above your messiah and proved it by a historic landslide. Seems you wouldn’t want to keep putting Trump down as a massive total loser to such a sad, weak, incompetent opponent, but you gotta be you.

Total N2 build up in the bloodstream is time dependent. If they're flitting about, zooming to the bottom and back to the top with very low Bottom Time, then the risk is (relatively) lower. But (IMO) not worth screwing with, as the downside (getting bent) is no picnic. Whether in a hole in Dubai or out on the reef, plan the dive and dive the plan.

And she's specific---that for the use of AI and Machine Learning visual processing of images taken of coral reefs (for example for population counts)--it could be very useful indeed.

For research purposes, I bet it's invaluable.
For instance, accurately knowing coral colors makes identification possible, and accurately measuring the vibrancy of those colors could allow better estimates of reef health.

A good, even *quality idea....for 40+ years ago.

It took 100+ years to mortally wound the ocean by 1000 cuts. A bandaid on one wound is not going to turn it around, and we almost certainly aren't going to do it anyway. Countries that don't buy into the plan will simply harvest most of the fish left by those who do. This only works in small scale preserves that are guarded against poaching, often by a military.

Fish stocks are disappearing at an alarming rate, many going extinct. For those species, it's too late, and they are numerous, and they are largely the fish humans prefer. Many others are in such decline fishing for them is already off limits or severely curtailed, like commercial salmon, abalone, and crab fishing in California. Even those actions have failed to revive their populations year after year.

Diatoms, phytoplankton, and other similar biotas are at the limit of acidity and temperature they can tolerate, and they are the base of the ocean food web, feeding most fish when they are fry or larvae. The gasses in the atmosphere today will push diatoms over that precipice with a massive ocean extinction following soon afterwards, and we continue to add more greenhouse gases than we added yesterday every day.

Then there's habitat loss, coral reefs and kelp forests are both being decimated by temperature rise and acidification. Together they are food and habitat for 25%-50% of all ocean fish and shellfish.

Less over harvesting of the ocean is a good idea, but pretending it alone can save the oceans is pure fantasy. The ocean has absorbed as much as 90+% of the excess heat from global warming, causing oceanic heat waves that destroy habitats both directly and indirectly. There is NO plan that solves that problem, it's well beyond our capabilities under the best conditions with worldwide maximum efforts.

Just sayin'.

Only if you ignore the acidification, heating, and other degradation of the oceans (which contain 99% of the living space and as much as 80% of all life on the planet)...and history. The massive habitat losses there are almost completely unrelated to farming feed crops and dwarf the recent losses on land.


Today creating space for farming is the major single cause for the intentional destruction of terrestrial habitats, but not historically.


Wiki-
Habitat destruction caused by humans includes land conversion from forests, etc. to arable land, urban sprawl, infrastructure development, and other anthropogenic changes to the characteristics of land. Habitat degradation, fragmentation, and pollution are aspects of habitat destruction caused by humans that do not necessarily involve over destruction of habitat, yet result in habitat collapse. Desertification, deforestation, and coral reef degradation are specific types of habitat destruction for those areas (deserts, forests, coral reefs).

...but what do you care? GET YOUWA AZZ TO VEGA!

Fare thee well, last remaining coral reefs.

Not so much if you actually read (and comprehend) it, or listened to the authors.
They've said clearly that even using their revised estimates of CO2's effects that to meet a 1.5 degree rise (the tipping point where we loose all ability to mitigate the run away greenhouse effect and start the irreversible march towards mirroring Venus) we have to start decreasing CO2 emissions today and be at zero by 2040. They've also said clearly that anyone misusing their paper to imply climate change is a myth is a liar, a moron, or both, because it says and implies no such thing.

What we are doing is raising the amount we emit while people like you who clearly don't grasp the science argue, ignoring that the effects of warming are already being seen far earlier than predicted....effects like melting methane hydrates that make up the difference in CO2 effects and then some, effects like 3-500 year floods in under 2 years in places, effects like reefs bleaching worldwide.
So much for the climate science denier BS.

I'd like to see the video where he's treading water off the Great Barrier Reef and splashing diced Chum around him.

I don't support our pulling out of the Paris Accord. I think it was the wrong thing to do. And I don't mind GDP growth for other nations, even China. What I do mind is the notion that the world's greatest polluter can increase its amount of Co2 emitted and still be touted as successfully contributing to reduced Co2 emissions worldwide.

"Telling China to limit their total CO2 emission to pre 2005 values is like telling a teenager in the middle of puberty to limit their food consumption to the same amount as when they were 9 years old. It's just not an option."

Who's telling China to do that? I only suggested that China's pledge to reduce their Co2 emissions to 60-65% of their 2005 levels as a ratio of GDP isn't all that it's made out to be. Your analogy is faulty because food consumption is necessary for life, but spending billions on destroying coral reefs while making artificial islands in the South China Sea is not. The CCP certainly has the funds necessary to effect a bigger, better and faster transition to green energy. Put another way, I believe that China has the potential to benefit both their people through economic growth and simultaneously do more in combating global climate change. I simply don't trust their current government to do it. I've been living in China now for over 19 years...and one thing that strikes me is the prevalence of appearance over substance. Perhaps you simply give them more credence in the latter, while my own perception seems to verify the former.

"But their total emissions is still increasing! This is just a farce and they're doing nothing!"

The second half of your statement is a strawman. They are doing something, just not enough, imho. And China's emissions have yet to plateau, therefore it's not an achievement yet.

"Now you may say "China's not putting funds towards green energy!" Well, that's also not true. China already surpassed the US, in spending on renewable energy. In fact, China spent $103 billion on renewable energy in 2015, far more than the US, which only spent $44 billion. Also, they will continue to pour enormous amounts of resources into renewable energy, far more than any other country."

This is also misleading. What I'm suggesting is that China could do more. It's certainly a matter of opinion on whether the Chinese government is properly funding green initiatives. For example, both your article and the amounts you cite ignore the fact that those numbers include Chinese government loans, tax credits, and R&D for Chinese manufacturers of solar panels...both for domestic use AND especially for export. The government has invested heavily into making solar panels a "strategic industry" for the nation. Their cheaper manufacturing methods, while polluting the land and rivers with polysilicon and cadmium, have created a glut of cheap panels...with a majority of the panels they manufacture being exported to Japan, the US and Europe. It's also forced many "cleaner" manufacturers of solar panels in the US and Europe out of business. China continues to overproduce these panels, and thus have "installed" much of the excess as a show of green energy "leadership." But what you don't hear about much is curtailment, that is the fact that huge percentages of this green energy never makes its way to the grid. It's lost, wasted...and yet we're supposed to give them credit for it? So...while you appear to want to give them full credit for their forward-looking investments, I will continue to look deeper and keep a skeptical eye on a government that has certainly earned our skepticism.

""But China is building more coal plants!" Well that's not really true either. China just scrapped over 100 coal power projects with a combined power capacity of 100 GW . Instead, the aforementioned investments will add over 130GW in renewable energy. Overall, Chinese coal consumption may have already peaked back in in 2013."

Well, yes, it really is true. China announcing the scrapping of 103 coal power projects on January 14th this year was a step in the right direction, and certainly very well timed politically. But you're assuming that that's the entirety of what China has recently completed, is currently building, and even plans to build. If you look past that sensationalist story, you'll see that they continue to add coal power at an accelerating pace. As to China's coal consumption already having peaked...lol...well, if you think they'd never underreport and then quietly revise their numbers upwards a couple of years later, then you should more carefully review the literature.

"So in the world of reality, how is China doing in terms of combating global warming? It's doing a decent job. So no "@Diogenes", China is NOT the single biggest factor in our future success/failure, because it is already on track to meeting its targets."

Well, your own link states:

"We rate China’s Paris agreement - as we did its 2020 targets - “medium.” The “medium“ rating indicates that China’s targets are at the last ambitious end of what would be a fair contribution. This means they are not consistent with limiting warming to below 2°C, let alone with the Paris Agreement’s stronger 1.5°C limit, unless other countries make much deeper reductions and comparably greater effort."

And if the greatest emitter of Co2 isn't the biggest factor, then what is? I'm not saying that China bears all the responsibility or even blame. I'm far more upset with my own country and government. But to suggest that China adding the most Co2 of any nation on earth (almost double what the US emits) isn't the largest single factor that influences AGW...I'm having trouble processing your rationale for saying so. Even if we don't question if they're on track to meet their targets, they'll still be the largest emitter of Co2...unless India somehow catches up to them.

To restate my position:
The US shouldn't have withdrawn from Paris.
China is not a global leader in fighting climate change.
To combat climate change, every nation needs to pull together.
China is not "pulling" at their weight, which means that other nations must take up more of the slack.
Surging forward, while "developed" nations stagnate will weaken the CCP's enemies...and make no mistake, they view most of us as their enemies.
The former is part of the CCP's long-term strategy for challenging the current geopolitical status quo.
I believe that the Chinese Communist Party is expending massive amounts of resources abroad and militarily, when the bulk of those funds would better serve their own people, environment and combating the global crisis of climate change.

Skip the beef, and save the reef :-)
Choose the bean pattie instead.

"Livestock and their byproducts account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.


Goodland, R Anhang, J. “Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change were pigs, chickens and cows?”

Goodland, Robert & Anhang, Jeff. "Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change are...cows, pigs and chickens?". WorldWatch. November/December 2009

Hickman, Martin. "Study claims meat creates half of all greenhouse gases". Independent. November 2009

Hyner, Christopher. "A Leading Cause of Everything: One Industry That Is Destroying Our Planet and Our Ability to Thrive on It". Georgetown Environmental Law Review. October 23, 2015. (New)"