Possible southern reef closure

[ReefHound]

Regarding your metaphor, and continuing on in the same vein - I don't think there is a gaping hole... just yet. But there are a lot of small leaks that are getting larger and more numerous all the time. The sump used to be able to keep up with, and even ahead of the leaks, but that is no longer the case.

Not only do I believe the hole is gaping but we don't even know for sure what caused it. If the globe is warming because of cyclical variations in solar radiation reaching the earth due to orbital precession then it is unstoppable by any means, even with all of Trump's nukes (lol). Even if not, global changes are not something that starts and stops on a dime. By the time you notice it happening, it's probably too late to stop.

That said, my comment about the futility of bailing water if there's a gaping hole was not in any way telling anyone e4lse not to do something. I try to be ecological-minded and do things like recycle cans, use reusable bags, avoid wasting water and electric, etc. But my point is that those doing these things have no business feeling sanctimonious about saving the world because it is highly unlikely that any of these things will have the slightest effect. And they certainly have no business in lecturing others and saying those not doing the same things are destroying the world.

 

[deepsea21]

If bailing water when there is a big gaping hole in the hull makes you feel better about yourself, feel free to continue. But don't be chastising others who recognize the futility of it.

This has been my point all along. Even if EVERYONE in the USA stopped consuming plastic and the country went 100% nuclear for power generation and everyone drove electric vehicles and we recycled absolutely everything it would make no difference as the root of 90% of the problem resides in 3rd world countries experiencing a population growth explosion that can't afford alternatives to cheap plastic, can't afford electric cars, can't afford to construct costly wind farms, hydroelectric or nuclear power plants, can't afford proper land fills or recycling plants or even municipal trash pick-up and effective sewage treatment systems. All should do as they will but they should wake up and realize whatever they do in the 1st world is not going change the ultimate outcome. USA greenhouse gas emissions and overall release of pollution per citizen has actually been decreasing for decades and has it made any difference globally? Nope... because our own population growth far outweighs the reductions made in pollution released per citizen. We are now at 327,000,000 citizens. Years ago people thought China's law of restricting couples to only having 1 child with rampant abortion practices was communist cruelty. Was it really or was it very forward thinking?

Bottom line, we should be very glad we live in the times we do. Earlier generations had it better in many ways in my opinion but future generations are going to live in a very different world that we luckily will not be around to see. At some point the world will reach maximum human population to be followed by decrease due to famine, disease and pollution based premature death as the global human life expectancy shortens dramatically. Every ecosystem finds its own balance in time and the global ecosystem is no different.

 

[ReefHound]

Someone mentioned that the USA is - or was - 4% of the world population but created 15% of the world's pollution. That happened because we grew the middle class, elevated our standard of living, and became a consumer society. And we did it with a fraction of our current population. What's done is done and not even the tree huggers are willing to go back to 1930's living.

The problem is that the rest of the world wants what we've got. All of the third-world developing nations want their better standard of living, too. Can't blame them but consider this. Given how much of the world's resources we consumed and how much of the world's pollution we generated with 100-150 million people pursuing the American Dream, just imagine what 5 BILLION people following the same path are going to do.

 

[scubadada]

The quality of this thread has deteriorated badly. All this stuff fighting it out between the believers and non-believers in climate change and those who think an effort should be made vs. those who do not, should all be moved to another thread, perhaps in the Pub.

 

[El Graduado]

The quality of this thread has deteriorated badly. All this stuff fighting it out between the believers and non-believers in climate change and those who think an effort should be made vs. those who do not, should all be moved to another thread, perhaps in the Pub.

I second the motion.

 

[pauldw]

Ever since Dengue Fever became an issue, the beach clubs have been over zealous in spraying insecticides in the pool areas, palapas, beach chairs and the beach sand. At Sabor, the air is permeated with the smell of insecticides. Personally, I think that the runoff from God knows what are in these chemicals is a big part of the problem.

Could you maybe expound on those first seven words, as it pertains to Cozumel and Quintana Roo? Thanks!

Also, on another note (the one pertaining to this thread), there sure are a lot of people stating for a fact that this or that does not cause reef trouble. But none of you are saying what has caused it. Makes me wonder if you know what you're talking about. Please come back when you do know what caused it. Thank you.

 

[cvchief]

Is it to much to suggest that coral in the entire Caribbean is getting sick and nothing done in Cozumel is gong to change it. You know like reef closures and such?

 

[Doctor Rig]

Is it possible this move to close the reefs to diving for three months is motivated to prove the reef health problems are NOT caused by one of the blamed variables, the divers?

Has anyone heard any credible estimates on what this “no diving” mandate will cost
Cozumel, Cozumel dive operations and Cozumel’s people, if it lasts 3 months, 6 months or a year?

 

[drrich2]

The Cozumel dive industry and its customer base are apt to look unfavorably upon reef-endangering or destroying measures such as installing more cruise ship piers. Given the number of cruise ships and the money involved with them, I keep coming back to this nagging, theoretical concern...

If the popular reef closures become extended and/or repetitive, will this weaken the dive industry? Cozumel is so equated with scuba that it seems insane at first glance, but they've got other revenue streams via industry (e.g.: cruise ships) with conflicting interests. Would a weakened dive industry make it easier for adversaries to gain ground in some way?

And I haven't heard of any plans to cut back the number of cruise ships for 3 months or so, to 'see if it helps.'

I'm not advocating this as the way things are. I'm asking if it's theoretically plausible, and thus worthy of consideration. If so, even if it had nothing to do with the decision to close reefs, it might contribute to consequences we won't like. If the dive industry brings less money into Cozumel, how will Cozumel try to make up for it?

 

[ReefHound]

Is it possible this move to close the reefs to diving for three months is motivated to prove the reef health problems are NOT caused by one of the blamed variables, the divers?

That would make a nice spin but I've seen no signs that this park council are big fans of scuba divers and really trying to support the industry. They didn't even give ANOAAT (large association of dive businesses) a heads up much less any special input. And their public statements have only talked about all the diver contacts and damage they do but really nothing about the cruise ships.