SoylentNews

Queensland Forest Clearings Spell Bad News For Great Barrier Reef

posted by janrinok on Tuesday May 15 2018, @01:25AM   
from the what-not-to-do dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

After huge amounts of coral bleaching and rising carbon emissions, the Great Barrier Reef could really use some good news. Sadly, that's not what it got this weekend.

A draft report from the Department of Environment and Energy recommends forest clearing should go ahead at northern Queensland's Kingvale Station, according to the Sydney Morning Herald. Prospective clearing was first authorised in 2014, and its purpose would be to make way for cropping and other activities.

Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg will rule on the matter, and if it goes forward it'll mean 2,000 hectares of forest areas right next to the Reef will be cleared. And that would almost certainly mean a soil pollution problem for the Reef.

[...] Not only is too much heat and light a problem, so is lack of sunlight. Sediment washed from the land into the Reef blocks sunlight onto the coral, restricting the necessary process of photosynthesis. It can also damage or kill some of the fauna supporting the ecosystem.

"Declining marine water quality, influenced by land-based run-off, is one of the most significant threats to the long-term health and resilience of the Great Barrier Reef." Ironically, that's a quote from the Queensland Government's State of the Environment page.

---

Original Submission

• Re:Point of view (Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday May 15 2018, @02:31AM

  by c0lo (156) on Tuesday May 15 2018, @02:31AM (#679911) Journal

  And that would almost certainly mean a soil pollution problem for the Reef.

  Or, depending on your perspective, it would mean that nutrient-rich topsoil would finally reach the reef.

  That nutrient-rich topsoil is poison for the reef and a boon for other species [gbrmpa.gov.au] that compete with it.

  You know? If I'm throwing you in a huge mass of caviar, you aren't going to thrive in it even if you consider it a delicacy now.
  Replace it with a pool of Coke for a closer-to-reality analogy.

  You can't have both of those. You don't have "too much light" and add a gram of topsoil and suddenly have "lack of sunlight." There's a range.

  And your point is... exactly what?

  Because shit like cyclones happens - loosened soil near the coast isn't going to stick around because you want so. Guess what happens when your range is vastly exceeded [abc.net.au]?

  On the other hand, reefs are often starved of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous [reefkeeping.com] that soil happens to be a great supplier of, if only the ecosystem provides a way to transfer it.

  Without the extra nutrients, the Great Barrier Reef did absolutely fine for tens of thousands of years.
  What makes you believe that adding more is better? (again: how about force-feeding you 5 gallons of Coke everyday?)

  --
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford

  Parent

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Moderation		+1
  Informative=1, Total=1
  Extra 'Informative' Modifier		0
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		3