The Great Barrier Reef is home to six different species of sea turtle. The survival of these turtles is threatened by water pollution and the direct impact of dredging.
Last year, the Turtle Island Restoration Network warned that coastal development in Queensland could push several species of these turtles towards extinction.
Extinction. Several species of these beautiful sea creatures would be gone forever. And yet this week, the Federal Environment Minister, Greg Hunt, gave the go ahead to four big industrial projects bordering the Great Barrier Reef.
The Federal Government has decided to allow three million cubic metres of rock and sediment, to be dredged and dumped in World Heritage waters.
The state government has welcomed the move, saying it will create thousands of jobs. Environmentalists, however, are deeply concerned. They believe it will put the World Heritage listing of the reef at risk – not to mention damage the natural ecosystems and habitats of the creatures that live there.
It’s not very hard to see why people might be concerned. The projects include a series of ports that will see more than 3 million cubic metres of the seabed dredged and dumped – within the Great Barrier Reef marine park area. This is in order to move coal – which is turn is likely to be responsible for the release of an estimated 3.7 billion tones of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Top Comments
One of the marks of good journalism is breaking from a habitual consumption of media releases and researching a story. Here is a suggestion: The Australian Institute of Marine Science's 27-year longitudinal study of reef health issued in October 2012: http://bit.ly/1dEyNrQ Nowhere in this report are the 20+ dredging campaigns conducted by port operators blamed for the reef's coral cover decline, which AIMS determined is due to storms (48%), crown of thorns starfish (42%) and coral bleaching (10%). Three million cubic metres (aka 150,000 tip trucks) represents one third of the new sediment from land-based sources entering the reef lagoon every (non-cyclone) year. Land run-off is well documented (most recently here: http://ab.co/1bJ6c56). Governments and farmers are rightly focusing on reducing the impact of sediment and nutrient run-off into the lagoon, which among other things (including fish kills and seagrass suffocation) is the catalyst for starfish outbreaks. What there is 'absolutely no doubt about' is that dredging has not been scientifically linked to anything beyond short-term and localised turbidity issues as confirmed by an independent study commissioned by GBRMPA after the relocation of 9 million tonnes of sediment at Hay Point in 2006. The notion that increased traffic must mean more accidents flies in the face of every airport expansion and road upgrade in history.
Start dumping a lot of metal frames,concrete blocks to make artificial reefs outside of the mining zone. Maybe they could do some underwater landscaping to try encourage the reef to grow in safer areas?
The reef extends thousands of kilometers. We are talking about a few hundred metres. To put it another way, the width of a piece of paper in a stack taller than a person. I think it will survive and if the dredging lowers the risk of ships grounding, then so much the better.
It doesn't work like that. It is not like chipping a bit off the corner, even the smallest action will have a ripple affect along the Reef.
Ships shouldn't be anywhere near the Great Barrier Reef. It is a protected zone and destroying part of it will affect the entire Reef. The dredging has already caused significant damage to the Reef and more coal mining activity will be detrimental to this World Heritage site.