There is always a way for the fossil fuel industry and the countries that coddle them to duck responsibility for the death of the planet from global heating.
The Great Barrier Reef is one of the marvels of the planet. The reef is so large that it can be seen from orbit and is the largest structure ever created by a living organism, and maybe as old as 20 million years. In over 6 million years, humans have finally brought the reef to its knees. The reef is expected to pass the tipping point in another 30 years, with complete death by 2100. The combination of global heating producing marine heatwaves and water purity and ph changes from ocean acidification has sealed its fate.
Corals built these massive walls over millions of years by growing on the bodies of corals that had come before them. Australian governments have made some protections to benefit the reefs, but the clear and present threat is from a world that has burned fossil fuels over the past 200 years with no end in sight.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization had stated that an aggressive effort against climate change was all that could save the reefs ecosystem from extinction as it is “in danger.” The Australian government raised holy hell about the recommendations, like 2015 when UNESCO kicked the crisis to 2021, the proverbial can is pushed out to 2023. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.
After intense lobbying by the Australian government, the World Heritage Committee today decided against listing the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) as “in danger,” as UNESCO had recommended in June.
“The science is clear” that the reef is in perilous condition, marine ecologist Terry Hughes of James Cook University, Townsville, tweeted in response, calling the committee decision “a travesty.”
UNESCO had recommended the GBR be listed as “in danger” not only because the reef was battered by major bleaching events in 2016, 2017, and 2020, but also because of Australia’s foot dragging in addressing climate change. But Sussan Ley, Australia’s environment minister, mounted a last-minute, global campaign to avert the move. In the run-up to the virtual meeting, officially held in Fuzhou, China, Ley contacted representatives of 18 of the 21 member countries of the World Heritage Committee either in person—by visiting Hungary, France, Spain, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Oman, and the Maldives—or virtually.
The effort apparently paid off when the committee, with little deliberation, decided to give Australia until February 2022 to produce a progress report on the reef’s status. The committee will take up the issue again in 2023 at the earliest.
Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions targets have not changed since 2015 and the prime minister, Scott Morrison, has resisted international pressure to adopt a firm net zero target by 2050.
Assoc Prof Scott Heron, of James Cook University, has led a study on the effects of climate change on world heritage reef sites. He said the recommendation was a “surprise” but “also not completely unexpected.”
“These cards have been stacking up over the past years,” he said.
The Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, said the threat of an “in danger” listing for the reef came as the return of Barnaby Joyce as Nationals’ leader made the government less likely to commit to a target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
“The whole of the G7, every state and territory government, every major business in Australia, the Business Council of Australia, the National Farmers’ Federation have all committed to it,” he said. “The The Greens leader, Adam Bandt, said the government had to choose between coal or the reef.
“You can’t have both,” he said. “If the world heats up over 1.5C [compared with pre-industrial levels], the reef will die. The only party in Australia with climate targets in line with 1.5C is the Greens.”