"If Kevin Rudd is sincere about taking 'any threat to the Great Barrier Reef fundamentally seriously' he should perhaps be looking more closely at the cargo on the ship"
Here’s a great article by the ABC News quoting David Wachenfeld (the Chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority) that places the recent ship grounding on the Great Barrier Reef in perspective:
Oil not the main threat from the coal ship (ABC News, 6th April)
“From my point of view as Prime Minister of Australia, there is no greater natural asset for Australia than the Great Barrier Reef,” said Kevin Rudd today after he flew over the reef to survey the damage caused by a Chinese coal ship that ran aground.
“I take any threat to the Great Barrier Reef fundamentally seriously,” he said.
David Wachenfeld, chief scientist at the Great Barrier Marine Park Authority says while he fears for the fate of the oil in the ships tanks, he is far more concerned about the impact of climate change on the reef than a lost Chinese coal ship.
“There is no doubt that climate change is the greatest long term threat to the reef.”
Oil spills are considered far less of a threat both because they are less likely, and their damage is localised if it does occur.
“Climate change is not a localised impact,” says Wachenfeld. “Unlike an oil spill, it doesn’t happen in one place; it happens everywhere. So the issue is scale. That’s what brings climate change to the top of the list. It’s simply the scale of the impact.”
There is an irony that the cargo the stranded ship is carrying is coal. Even if the ship lost its entire supply of oil, the environmental catastrophe would still be less than the impact of the world’s continued burning of fossil fuels.
So if Kevin Rudd is sincere about taking “any threat to the Great Barrier Reef fundamentally seriously” he should perhaps be looking more closely at the cargo on the ship, than its route or the hole in its fuel tank.
Valuable words. Hat tip to Chris McGrath for pointing out the article.
4 Responses to "If Kevin Rudd is sincere about taking 'any threat to the Great Barrier Reef fundamentally seriously' he should perhaps be looking more closely at the cargo on the ship"
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Archives
- January 2013 (10)
- December 2012 (2)
- November 2012 (2)
- August 2012 (4)
- July 2012 (4)
- June 2012 (3)
- May 2012 (2)
- April 2012 (4)
- March 2012 (5)
- February 2012 (6)
- January 2012 (3)
- November 2011 (3)
- October 2011 (3)
- September 2011 (2)
- August 2011 (11)
- July 2011 (11)
- June 2011 (5)
- May 2011 (17)
- April 2011 (6)
- March 2011 (5)
- February 2011 (8)
- January 2011 (9)
- December 2010 (8)
- November 2010 (15)
- October 2010 (16)
- September 2010 (6)
- August 2010 (13)
- July 2010 (8)
- June 2010 (26)
- May 2010 (18)
- April 2010 (26)
- March 2010 (42)
- February 2010 (61)
- January 2010 (24)
- December 2009 (43)
- November 2009 (30)
- October 2009 (29)
- September 2009 (36)
- August 2009 (31)
- July 2009 (33)
- June 2009 (23)
- May 2009 (19)
- April 2009 (21)
- March 2009 (19)
- February 2009 (7)
- January 2009 (19)
- December 2008 (20)
- November 2008 (15)
- October 2008 (8)
- September 2008 (13)
- August 2008 (8)
- July 2008 (12)
- June 2008 (14)
- May 2008 (17)
- April 2008 (11)
- March 2008 (11)
- February 2008 (16)
- January 2008 (11)
- December 2007 (7)
- November 2007 (18)
- October 2007 (10)
- September 2007 (18)
- August 2007 (25)
- July 2007 (18)
- June 2007 (4)







And what did Rudd accomplish by flying over the wreck – except a “news op”, and more pointless, superfluous burning of fossil fuels
Well said David Wachenfeld. Anna Bligh may also want to seriously think about QLD’s coal exports in relation to the State’s most valuable icon.
For example:
“In 2008, the state’s 54 coal mines produced a record 188 million tonnes of coal. We are a major player in the international coal market, with Queensland coal exports accounting for some 20% of the global trade.”
“With current expansion plans, the Queensland Government is looking to more than double our coal production and exports by 2030. Even at conservative estimates, this will emit an additional 460 million tonnes of CO2 per annum into the atmosphere – equivalent to the annual emissions of 65 average coal-fired power stations.”
From http://www.sixdegrees.org.au/
Well said Chris.
For anyone interested in the issues raised in this post, the Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand (EIANZ) has a very interesting looking summit planned for 11 May 2010 in Brisbane on the topic of “Courageous Decisions: Queensland’s Economic Transition under Climate Change”.
Speakers include Guy Pearse, author of High & Dry, who is now at the Global Change Institute at UQ.
Topics include “coal exports” and “Queensland without the Reef”.
Further information is available at:
http://www.eianz.org/eventsplus/event/courageous-decisions-queenslands-economic-transition-under-climate-change