The comments here seems to be missing the point, yes the article is not technically clickbait, but it also explicitly mentions that while oxybenzone causes bleaching, it is not responsible for THE coral bleaching that we are seeing in most reefs around the world.
> The study lacks “ecological realism”, agrees Terry Hughes, a marine biologist at James Cook University in Townsville, Australia. Coral-bleaching events on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, for example, have been linked more closely to trends in water temperature than to shifts in tourist activity. “Mass bleaching happens regardless of where the tourists are,” Hughes says. “Even the most remote, most pristine reefs are bleaching because water temperatures are killing them.”
And this gem as a final note:
> Hughes emphasizes that the greatest threats to reefs remain rising temperatures, coastal pollution and overfishing. Changing sunscreens might not do much to protect coral reefs, Hughes says. “It’s ironic that people will change their sunscreens and fly from New York to Miami to go to the beach,” he says. “Most tourists are happy to use a different brand of sunscreen, but not to fly less and reduce carbon emissions.”
Exactly. I have quite a few friends who regularly fly/travel to these scenic ocean/river systems, but will absolve themselves of concern because they're using some 'reef safe' sunscreen when they dip in to the water. Greenhouse gas emissions are always someone else's fault. Industry, diesel trucks, etc etc.
They're also the same folks that attack Airbnb and gentrification at home, but are the first to jump on to the Airbnb moneyed expat lifestyle when traveling.
At this point, it's not even worth the time to debate.
You could make a compelling argument that no one with any real power would care about the reefs if they weren't regularly visited by relatively wealthy tourists that have at least some connection to those in power and the broader public. Yellowstone wouldn't exist without people like John Muir. Travel helps people connect with the physical world and the people who inhabit physically and culturally remote places.
I've heard this used as the line of thinking for why we still have zoos as well. To help conservation. If animals are out of sight and out of mind then they're out of my concern. So, let's keep the zoos to keep wild animals on top of mind, and hopefully around a little longer.
let me indicate that most scientists work on these animals are working in zoo -- only they know how to cure, take care and saving wildlife in this world.
In the sense that they destroyed most megafauna within a few centuries of arrival? Or in the sense that modern hunters are now regulated so they don't drive their choice species extinct?
No, he means people like Roosevelt. The North American megafauna that went extinct all died off at the end of the Pleistocene during a period of rapid warming, it isn't know how much humans contributed in North America.
Interestingly, some of the more effective environmental activist organizations are groups that started to protect the outdoor recreation activities of wealthy people. Trout Unlimited is a good example.
This feels like a corollary of the concept of "Voting with your wallet", which is a debatable concept at best. Individual actions in the face of corporations like airlines and airbnb won't affect the company. It's only going to negatively impact your life. Working on systemic change is the answer.
There are a thousand examples of companies evaporating for exactly that reason.
'Systemic change' doesn't mean anything in reality. You can't destroy a national economic model and just replace it any more than you can make people spend money where they aren't going. Economies rely on travel and so travel has subsidy.
During 2020 no one flew anywhere and the airlines were smashed with losses. That's not sustainable for any real length of time. If individuals cared to stop flying, they would and airlines would be bankrupt in 2-3 years. No amount of subsidy can maintain those organizations without broad customer support. The soviet infrastructure decline of the 80s is a perfect example of that process in action
in the sense that it's impossible to enact in a coordinated fashion without something cataclysmic like a plague to push the group action.
Yeah, no one flew in 2020 -- they were concerned with their own personal well-being while being told from every existing outlet that there was a virulent pathogen that may end their life.
How, pray tell, do you recreate that kind of action? You could cry wolf about some global disaster, but eventually the listening ears will get tired of reacting.
Reef-bleaching isn't a "you're going to die from a deadly virus in several weeks" concern, it's a "think of generations after you" concern -- and historically we as humans tend to stick our heads in the sand when confronted with issues like that; we'd prefer to have luxury ourselves than save it for later generations.
I agree. The "rat race" is a competition with other humans. "Keeping up with the Joneses".
For every person saying "I'll not fly" or "I'll buy an efficient car" there are many more who'll be happy to take their spot on the plane or buy the 2000+kg SUV gas guzzler.
The only way to properly shape things is to change the rules of the game.
"Tragedy of the commons" only workaround thus far is a central body to limit individuals in the interests for all.
I understand your argument, but I disagree with your premise.
The idea that we, each, are the responsible party in this equation is ill founded. Companies have been pitching the idea that we need to be accountable to prevent disaster so that they absolve themselves of the responsibility. We are not the problem even with all the planes. That's the pitch and you are out in the wild trying to further their work for free.
Industrial pollution is orders of magnitude greater than consumer pollution. So, force the populace to adhere to a contrived austerity and continue with the profits.
I have certainly seen the very same people express concern about gentrification but then will also go out of their way to book airbnb or airbnb-style accommodations for travel because it feels more authentic than a hotel.
Right. Everyone could simultaneously choose to never travel and it might make a romantic, but not actually impactful dent in the climate apocalypse story.
I just got back from a trip to Cairns and the reef is basically gone in the few locations I visited. 20 years ago it was like swimming in a Disney movie with Nemo. Now you might as well be swimming off the rocks at Batemans Bay.
The 21/22 bleaching event has finally killed the reef I think.
Carbon tax only works if everyone agrees which is the actual crux of the issue. If you enforce new legislation to tax carbon-emitting industries in the US, all you are doing is offshoring that manufacturing to some place where the tax does not exist.
Not saying that it's inherently a bad idea, but there are no silver bullets on that issue. I'd like to see more work done on point source capture of carbon/methane. https://netl.doe.gov/carbon-management/carbon-capture
Air travel isn't something that can be offshored - if somebody in America wants to fly, they're getting on a plane in America, where an American carbon tax would apply.
Sure, it doesn't fix industries which can offshore, but it's a good place to start. Commercial air is a major source of carbon emissions.
My quick google says it's 2.5% of carbon emissions (for both passengers and cargo).
If we add a carbon tax, do you consider the prime benefit to be the reduction in demand (if it means 20% less air travel, that's .5% total global carbon emissions reduction)
Or do you feel like the prime benefit is to spur/incentivize more carbon neutral strategies (like electric aircraft?)?
Or, do you feel like the primary benefit would be the "offsets" (like protecting trees, carbon capture technology, etc)
I see a lot of talk about reducing carbon emissions, but it seems like there are a lot of things a "carbon tax" could change, and I feel like deciding on what one of those is the primary benefit is a harder problem than leveraging the tax in the first place.
Any type of reduction would be a huge deal. 0.5% net is more than most would dare to hope for.
Remember that each and every year we release more carbon in the atmosphere than the year before. So far with only one exception, during the covid lockdowns, but now we're back again with an even bigger increase than before.
No they are not. Airliners fly in the lower stratosphere, the troposphere is what is primarily warming. The effects on ozone are another story.
[edit] for anyone downvoting, I'm referencing this paper[1] in the Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change from 2002, which says:
> Increases of the concentration of
small particles emitted from aircraft with similar residence
times have also been measured near dense flight routes. CO2
on the other hand, has a lifetime of the order of 100 years
and gets distributed essentially over the whole atmosphere.
Therefore, the effects of CO2 emissions from aircraft are
indistinguishable from the same quantity of CO2 emitted at
the same time by any other source.
It's consistent with older research as well, and I can't find anything newer that refutes the claim.
I think your reasoning is correct for CO2, but the OP asked about "emissions" in general. For some of these, the dispersion is less, and thus the high altitude does make a difference. I've only skimmed it, but this seems to be a good paper describing the different effects: http://www.anjakollmuss.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/SEI_A...
While agreeing that a multiplier is not strictly correct, they recommend applying multiplier "greater than 2" to properly account for the non-CO2 effects of air traffic on global warming: Though science-based reasoning discourages the use of a simple multiplier to account for non-CO2 effects, such a multiplier is desirable from a policy and climate protection point of view. We elaborate on a number of scientific and value-related issues and conclude that a multiplier of 2 or greater should be used for air travel emissions calculators to account for non-CO2 warming effects.
Yeah I understood the OP to mean c02 and added the caveat about other emissions. It seems pretty uncertain, especially as lower level stratospheric mixing seems poorly understood. But, my understanding extends only as far as having read 3 papers on the topic.
From some googling, they lack catalytic converters, so the emissions they do put out are more harmful to the environment per-pound-produced than what comes out of a car's tailpipe.
But aren't some of the emissions (sulfur based ones) significantly more harmful than pure CO2 released, and (from what I remember about Nathan Myhrvold's work) much more impactful when released at 40k feet? Just wondering if measuring the CO2 volume is less relevant when talking about releasing sulfurs at altitude.
I’ve flown a couple times this year. I’ve been airborne for about 20 hours. Are you saying my portion of the emissions from those flights is likely negligible compared to the emissions from owning a home and car?
it's not that they don't believe in climate change -- that's a bit naive, tbh. it's that it's an incredibly weak bargaining position. the thinking goes like this: you care about the earth so much? then you cut back on your emissions. go ahead. that's the US's stance. it's the same stance Brazil uses re: deforestation & agricultural sprawl. they're negotiating in bad faith; they're not stupid.
the US in effect wants to be the last person to exit the room and turn off the lights. do you want them to move faster? then you need to get out of the room first. the smaller players need to stop pretending that they're the same size as the US, China, and India. That's just foolish wishful thinking. nobody's going to hold them accountable to environmental treaties or any carbon targets.
when everyone small leaves the room, then the US will shove the last remaining countries out before it, too. because it can. because you care more about the "environment" than they do, collectively.
That's exactly what negotiations and agreements are for. Nobody wants to cut emissions if the others are not chipping in too.
Paying taxes is annoying. Yet we need things like law enforcement or defense. So to make it happen, we agree on rules and then we enforce them on everyone. It wouldn't be possible if it was based on just altruism.
Absolutely and utterly fictional. Carbon credit schemes are a way to push cost off and allow for corporations to pollute.
Look at industrial pollutants and carbon is one of the least concerning. It's a political talking point why? Because lobbyists tell politicians they need it and hand them money.
Investigate a little deeper. You will find that the entire world must agree to participate for something like carbon tax to work... the world is not on board with hobbling industry
Maybe we do indeed need that tax. My only request would be the decision to be democratic and making sure the revenue doesn’t go to to the monopoly that injected people with plutonium. Instead it can be used to reverse the damage and with any excess being returned to their rightful earners.
> The study lacks “ecological realism”, agrees Terry Hughes, a marine biologist at James Cook University in Townsville, Australia. Coral-bleaching events on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, for example, have been linked more closely to trends in water temperature than to shifts in tourist activity. “Mass bleaching happens regardless of where the tourists are,” Hughes says. “Even the most remote, most pristine reefs are bleaching because water temperatures are killing them.”
And this gem as a final note:
> Hughes emphasizes that the greatest threats to reefs remain rising temperatures, coastal pollution and overfishing. Changing sunscreens might not do much to protect coral reefs, Hughes says. “It’s ironic that people will change their sunscreens and fly from New York to Miami to go to the beach,” he says. “Most tourists are happy to use a different brand of sunscreen, but not to fly less and reduce carbon emissions.”