Climate Change and Reefs - Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

LAJim

Contributor
Messages
719
Reaction score
0
he four foundation reports of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment were released yesterday. An LA Times article (published today) provides a very brief summary of some of the issues in the reports. The general scuba diving community will particularly note the implications of climate change for coral reefs.

The reports join 10 or so related reports already released by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. These are on-line at:

http://www.millenniumassessment.org//en/products.aspx

The MEA was launched by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in June 2001 and completed in March 2005. One of the largest multi-disciplinary, multi-national research initiatives ever undertaken, the MEA was conducted by 1300 investigators from 95 countries. It's funding came in part from The World Bank, The Packard Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, and the Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research.

Although not direcly related the San Francisco Chronicle published a story a few days ago on the impact of climate change on Cabo Pulmo in Mexico.

see: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic.../MNGG0GOFQ11.DTL&hw=cabo+pulmo&sn=001&sc=1000

Cabo Pulmo is a town of 250 people on the Sea of Cortez with an economy based very heavily on scuba diving. Death of the reefs would destroy the economy. There is a photo of food being served to divers at La Palapa, a nice place to eat after diving. If you go I recommend the fish tacos.

THE WORLD
'Green' Measures Key to Earth's Future, Report Says
By Usha Lee McFarling, Times Staff Writer

By 2050, the planet's population will increase to 9 billion, with most people migrating to massive cities. Better vaccines will lessen the epidemic of HIV and offset flu pandemics. The global economy will quadruple. Demand for food, fresh water and raw materials for construction and heat will stretch natural resources to their limits, according to an analysis released Thursday.

If major changes are not made in the way humans consume natural resources, there will be widespread famine, severe shortages of clean water and huge impacts from natural disasters such as hurricanes. Cities will be beset by vast amounts of wastewater and sewage. Sea levels will rise, fisheries will collapse, emerging disease epidemics will sweep across the globe and coral reefs will die off, said authors of the new report, "The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment." Commissioned by the United Nations, the work is a four-year effort by 1,300 scientists from 95 countries.
This grim scenario, however, can be avoided through policy decisions that emphasize environmental technology, poverty reduction and investments in education and health, the report's authors said.

"Despite what looks like steady decline, this is a story of hope," said Stephen Carpenter, a lead author of the report and expert on ecosystem management at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "The good news is that we can make a very positive difference by 2050."

During the last 50 years, living conditions have improved for a majority of the planet's population: People live longer, are better nourished and wealthier and are able to participate more in government, said Walter Reid, a professor at Stanford University's Institute for the Environment and director of the assessment. That progress, though, has come at a heavy cost to natural resources. The continued degradation of resources such as forests and fresh water will severely affect quality of life, particularly for the poor, he said.

"There's an unbreakable link between human well-being and the health of the planet," Reid said at a news briefing in Washington to release the report.

One way to improve the future of both the planet and its residents, Reid said, is through "green" technology, such as the construction of energy-efficient homes and offices.

"The number of buildings that will be built in the 21st century is on the order of the number of buildings built in the entirety of human history," Carpenter said.

Agricultural practices will also have to improve because farming is the most extensive modification of the Earth's surface caused by humans and is the largest user of fresh water, he said.

The report also calls for natural resources such as water to be priced to reflect their true value and not as though they were infinite.

Countries also need to start curtailing the use of fossil fuels to limit the effects of climate change, which could raise temperatures by 3.5 degrees by 2050 and increase sea levels by several inches, the report says. Although climate change could bring more rain and fresh water to some areas, it also could cause flooding and increase vulnerability to hurricanes in others.

All of the technologies and policy changes needed to improve the planet's future outlook are available today, Carpenter said, but they are not in widespread use and face political hurdles. "Substantial changes would have to be made," he said.

One suggestion calls for ending the subsidies that many rich nations give to farmers. These policies keep food prices artificially low and discourage crop production in poorer countries that could use the economic boost that can accompany agricultural production. Ending subsidies would also encourage the reversion of much farmland now under cultivation to more natural states — forests or meadows — that could improve the environment, said Prabhu Pingali, a director of the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization and one of the report's authors. Pingali, an economist, said the world's poorest people had the most to lose if improvements were not made. Economic policy changes could improve the environment, which in turn could boost economies, he added. "Ecology and economics can work together," he said.

The authors said that reaction to the report was favorable, with some countries, including China and the Netherlands, already implementing some suggestions or planning national assessments. Many developing countries said they were not embracing the report as readily because they lacked the resources to implement many of the changes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service are studying the report and may implement some suggestions, Reid said.

"The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment" is the first analysis that includes natural resources and land use in projections of how population and the economy will change over the long term, its authors said.
 
From Reuters:

"Costs of safeguarding the world's fast-disappearing coral reefs and mangroves are small compared to the benefits they provide from tourism to fisheries, the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) said on Tuesday.
...
The report...estimated that intact coral reefs were worth $100,000-$600,000 per sq km (0.3861 sq mile) a year to humankind and a sq km of mangroves $200,000-$900,000 a year.
...
By contrast, the cost of protecting a sq km of coral reef or mangroves in a marine park was just $775 a year, it reckoned.

It said that all estimates were based on vague data and had to be treated with caution but indicated that better protection made sense in a little-tested branch of ecosystem economics.

...about 30 percent of reefs were severely damaged and that 60 percent could be lost by 2030. About 35 percent of mangroves had already disappeared due to logging, disease and conversion to fish farms.
 
Looks like the "Chicken Littles" of a decade or more ago are being vindicated. About time. As mentioned in the post above, it all boils down to a human population that continues to grow at rates that are not sustainable given the resource base. As global standards of living rise to approach that of the West, this will only get worse since as far as material culture (and freedom) we are generally the role model.
 
My reading is that CO2 (and methane) is the deal breaker for reefs. CO2 is up 32% since 1750 and most of that increase has happened since 1959. We own two hybrids and car pool whenever possible. I do research in areas relevant to fuel production and environmental consequences. Using existing coal conversion technology we have enough domestic reserves to keep driving (diesel) cars to our content for another 400 years. But what kind of world with pCO2 over 500 ppm, then 1000 ppm? The reefs could be gone in 30 years. They can't handle more than a couple degrees F in water temperature increase.

Jim
 

Back
Top Bottom