The conservation status for Australia's Great Barrier Reef has declined from "significant concern" to "critical" due to increasing impacts associated with climate change, a new report has found.
The damage to the reef is a result of ocean warming, acidification and extreme weather, which has resulted in coral bleaching, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) 2020 World Heritage Outlook report, which tracks whether the conservation of the world's 252 natural World Heritage sites is sufficient to protect them in the long term. The process of coral bleaching occurs when water is too warm and the algae the corals expel from their tissues cause them to turn completely white.
The decline of the coral has also resulted in decreasing populations of certain marine species, researchers found. The reef, the most extensive in the world, houses more than 1,500 species of fish.
A third of the natural World Heritage sites are currently being threatened by climate change, the IUCN reported.
Warming temperatures have exacerbated the spread of invasive species in the protected areas of the Cape Floral region in South Africa, and the Pantanal Conservation Area in Brazil was heavily damaged by wildfires in 2019 and 2020, according to the report. In addition, the rapid melting of the Kaskawulsh Glacier, part of Kluane Lake in the Yukon, has changed the river flow, which has led to depleting fish populations.
Since 2017, the conservation outlooks of 16 sites have changed to deteriorating, while only eight showed improvement, and the threats are expected to continue, according to the report.
Climate change continues to be the No. 1 threat to natural World Heritage sites. In 2014, the IUCN identified climate change as the most significant potential threat, and it 2017, it became the fastest-growing threat. In 2020, climate change remains the "most prevalent current threat," and it is assessed as a "high" or "very high" threat in 83 of 252 sites, according to the report.
After climate change, the next two significant threats to these natural sites are invasive alien species and tourism impacts.
In addition to the Great Barrier Reef, the islands and protected areas of Mexico's Gulf of California have also entered the critical category, the report found. It was included in the IUCN's List of World Heritage in Danger in 2019 due to the imminent extinction of endemic vaquita, which the World Wildlife Fund describes as the "world's rarest marine mammal."
There are currently 18 sites on the critical list, including the Everglades National Park in Florida and the tropical rainforest in Indonesia.
“Natural World Heritage sites are amongst the world’s most precious places, and we owe it to future generations to protect them,” Bruno Oberle, the IUCN director general, said in a statement. “The IUCN World Heritage Outlook 3 reveals the damage climate change is wreaking on natural World Heritage, from shrinking glaciers to coral bleaching to increasingly frequent and severe fires and droughts. As the international community defines new objectives to conserve biodiversity, this report signals the urgency with which we must tackle environmental challenges together at the planetary scale.”
reddicyoulous on December 6th, 2020 at 22:02 UTC »
That is depressing. I'm glad I got to scuba dive and explore the GBR but I feel terrible for the future generations who will miss out on this beautiful wonder due to our actions today.
ILikeNeurons on December 6th, 2020 at 20:43 UTC »
The consensus among scientists and economists on carbon pricing§ to mitigate climate change is similar to the consensus among climatologists that human activity is responsible for global warming. Putting the price upstream where the fossil fuels enter the market makes it simple, easily enforceable, and bureaucratically lean. Returning the revenue as an equitable dividend offsets any regressive effects of the tax (in fact, ~60% of the public would receive more in dividend than they paid in tax) and allows for a higher carbon price (which is what matters for climate mitigation) because the public isn't willing to pay anywhere near what's needed otherwise. Enacting a border tax would protect domestic businesses from foreign producers not saddled with similar pollution taxes, and also incentivize those countries to enact their own. And a carbon tax accelerates the adoption of every other solution. It's widely regarded as the single most impactful climate mitigation policy.
Conservative estimates are that failing to mitigate climate change will cost us 10% of GDP over 50 years, starting about now. In contrast, carbon taxes may actually boost GDP, if the revenue is returned as an equitable dividend to households (the poor tend to spend money when they've got it, which boosts economic growth) not to mention create jobs and save lives.
Taxing carbon is in each nation's own best interest (it saves lives at home) and many nations have already started, which can have knock-on effects in other countries. In poor countries, taxing carbon is progressive even before considering smart revenue uses, because only the "rich" can afford fossil fuel in the first place. We won’t wean ourselves off fossil fuels without a carbon tax, the longer we wait to take action the more expensive it will be. Each year we delay costs ~$900 billion.
It's the smart thing to do, and the IPCC report made clear pricing carbon is necessary if we want to meet our 1.5 ºC target.
Contrary to popular belief the main barrier isn't lack of public support. But we can't keep hoping others will solve this problem for us. We need to take the necessary steps to make this dream a reality:
Build the political will for a livable climate. Lobbying works, and you don't need a lot of money to be effective (though it does help to educate yourself on effective tactics). If you're too busy to go through the free training, sign up for text alerts to join coordinated call-in days (it works) or set yourself a monthly reminder to write a letter to your elected officials. According to NASA climatologist and climate activist Dr. James Hansen, becoming an active volunteer with Citizens' Climate Lobby is the most important thing you can do for climate change, and climatologist Dr. Michael Mann calls its Carbon Fee & Dividend policy an example of sort of visionary policy that's needed.
§ The IPCC (AR5, WGIII) Summary for Policymakers states with "high confidence" that tax-based policies are effective at decoupling GHG emissions from GDP (see p. 28). Ch. 15 has a more complete discussion. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, one of the most respected scientific bodies in the world, has also called for a carbon tax. According to IMF research, most of the $5.2 trillion in subsidies for fossil fuels come from not taxing carbon as we should. There is general agreement among economists on carbon taxes whether you consider economists with expertise in climate economics, economists with expertise in resource economics, or economists from all sectors. It is literally Econ 101. The idea won a Nobel Prize. Thanks to researchers at MIT, you can see for yourself how it compares with other mitigation policies here.
alvvayson on December 6th, 2020 at 20:36 UTC »
Because the oceans absorb two thirds of all emissions, ocean acidification progresses much faster than global warming.
Basically, even if we limit emissions to 1.5 or 2 degrees warming, the oceanic reefs cannot be saved.
If we wanted to save the reefs, we would have needed to curb emissions in the 1980s and 1990s with nuclear technology.
But after Chernobyl, fossil fuels were seen as preferable and hence we live in a world where ocean reefs will all die out and cannot be saved.