In a Hotter Future, What Comes After Coral Reefs Die?
The fate of coral reefs has been written with a degree of certainty rare in climate science: at 1.5 degrees Celsius of global warming, most are expected to die.
This is not a far-off scenario. Scientists predict that the rise of 1.5 Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) will be reached within a decade and that beyond that point, many coral simply cannot survive.
It is important to accept this and ask what next "rather than trying to hold onto the past," said David Obura, chair of IPBES, the UN's expert scientific panel on biodiversity.
"I wish it were different," Obura, a Kenyan reef scientist and founding director of CORDIO East Africa, a marine research organization, told AFP.
"We need to be pragmatic about it and ask those questions, and face up to what the likely future will be."
And yet, it is a subject few marine scientists care to dwell on.
"We are having a hard time imagining that all coral reefs really could die off," said Melanie McField, a Caribbean reef expert, who described a "sort of pre-traumatic stress syndrome" among her colleagues.
"But it is likely in the two-degree world we are rapidly accelerating to," McField, founding director of the Healthy Reefs for Healthy People Initiative, told AFP.
When stressed in hotter ocean waters, corals expel the microscopic algae that provides their characteristic color and food source. Without respite, bleached corals slowly starve.
At 1.5C of warming relative to pre-industrial times, between 70 and 90 percent of coral reefs are expected to perish, according to the IPCC, the global authority on climate science.
At 2C, that number rises to 99 percent.
Even with warming as it stands today -- about 1.4C -- mass coral death is occurring, and many scientists believe the global collapse of tropical reefs may already be underway.
- What comes next -
Obura said it was not pessimistic to imagine a world without coral reefs, but an urgent question that scientists were "only just starting to grapple with".
"I see no reason to not be clear about where we are at this point in time," Obura said. "Let's be honest about that, and deal with the consequences."
Rather than disappear completely, coral reefs as they exist today will likely evolve into something very different, marine scientists on four continents told AFP.
This would happen as slow-growing hard corals -- the primary reef builders that underpin the ecosystem -- die off, leaving behind white skeletons without living tissue.
Gradually, these would be covered by algae and colonized by simpler organisms better able to withstand hotter oceans, like sponges, mussels, and weedy soft corals like sea fans.
"There will be less winners than there are losers," said Tom Dallison, a marine scientist and strategic advisor to the International Coral Reef Initiative.
These species would dominate this new underwater world. The dead coral beneath -- weakened by ocean acidification, and buffeted by waves and storms -- would erode over time into rubble.
"They will still exist, but they will just look very different. It is our responsibility to ensure the services they provide, and those that depend on them, are protected," Dallison said.
- Dark horizon -
One quarter of all ocean species live among the world's corals.
Smaller, sparser, less biodiverse reefs simply means fewer fish and other marine life.
The collapse of reefs threatens in particular the estimated one billion people who rely on them for food, tourism income, and protection from coastal erosion and storms.
But if protected and managed properly, these post-coral reefs could still be healthy, productive, attractive ecosystems that provide some economic benefit, said Obura.
So far, the picture is fuzzy -- research into this future has been very limited.
Stretched resources have been prioritized for protecting coral and exploring novel ways to make reefs more climate resilient.
But climate change is not the only thing threatening corals.
Tackling pollution, harmful subsidies, overfishing and other drivers of coral demise would give "the remaining places the best possible chance of making it through whatever eventual warming we have," Obura said.
Conservation and restoration efforts were "absolutely essential" but alone were like "pushing a really heavy ball up a hill, and that hill is getting steeper," he added.
Trying to save coral reefs "is going to be extremely difficult" as long as we keep pouring carbon into the atmosphere, said Jean-Pierre Gattuso, an oceans expert from France's flagship scientific research institute, CNRS.
But some coral had developed a level of thermal tolerance, he said, and research into restoring small reef areas with these resilient strains held promise.
"How do we work in this space when you have this sort of big dark event on the horizon? It's to make that dark event a little brighter," said Dallison.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
2 days ago
- Arab News
In Uganda, a tougher bicycle offers hope for better health coverage in rural areas
LIRA: The bicycle parked in Lucy Abalo's compound doesn't belong to her. Any one of the hundreds of people in her village can show up and ask to use it. A man might wish to take his pregnant wife for a checkup. A woman might need transport to pick up HIV medication. An injured child might need a trip to a hospital. 'The goodness about this bike,' Abalo said, is its availability to all. She is one of dozens of 'village doctors' in rural Uganda who recently were supplied with the Buffalo Bicycle, so called because its steel parts are reinforced to perform in areas with bad roads. World Bicycle Relief, a Chicago-based nonprofit, promotes the Buffalo Bicycle in remote parts of Africa. It collaborates with governments, non-governmental groups and others who use the bikes to improve access to health services. In Uganda, an east African country of 45 million people, efforts to market the bicycle have focused on supporting health workers like Abalo, who visits people's homes and reports any issues to authorities. As a community health extension worker, or CHEW, she has gained the trust of villagers, who can knock on her door in emergency situations. She said she helps to look after about 8,000 people in the area. And at least twice a week, she is required to report to a government-run health center about 5 kilometers (3 miles) away and assist with triaging patients. Ugandan health authorities acknowledge that one challenge for CHEWs is transportation, part of a larger burden of poverty that can leave health facilities lacking ambulances or even gas to move them. World Bicycle Relief, operating locally as Buffalo Bicycles Uganda, has collaborated with Ugandan health authorities since 2023 to equip 331 CHEWs in two of the country's 146 districts. One is Lira, 442 kilometers (274 miles) north of the capital, Kampala. Bicycles have long been ubiquitous, and many families tend to have one. Cultural norms in northern Uganda don't prohibit women from riding. While the roads in Lira town are paved, dirt paths lead into the heart of the district where farming is the main economic activity. The Buffalo Bicycle is a recent arrival. Many have never heard of it, or can't afford it. Retailing for roughly $200, it is three times more expensive than the cheapest regular bicycle — otherwise out of reach for many CHEWs, who do not yet earn a salary. The bike's promoters cite its durability in rough terrain, needing fewer trips to the mechanic as a way to save money. The Buffalo Bicycle's heavy-gauge steel frame is so strong that it comes with a five-year warranty, said Amuza Ali, a monitoring officer in Lira for Buffalo Bicycles Uganda. Abalo and others told the AP the Buffalo Bicycle felt uncomfortable to use in the beginning, with a braking system that doesn't permit carefree backpedaling. 'When I climbed on it, it wasn't that easy as I thought,' Abalo said. 'I was like, 'I am trying again to learn how to ride.'' CHEWs using the bicycles reported a 108 percent increase in households reached each week, and the time to reach health facilities dropped by nearly half, according to a study published in May by World Bicycle Relief. The study shows that 'mobility is not a luxury in health care' but a lifeline, CEO Dave Neiswander said in a statement released for the report. Diana Atwine, permanent secretary at the Ministry of Health, has urged the distribution of bicycles to more CHEWs across Uganda, saying front-line health workers save an unknown number of lives each year. Abalo received her Buffalo Bicycle from the health minister last year. One of her neighbors, Babra Akello, said she has used the bicycle at least six times already. The first was for transport to an antenatal checkup. She praised Abalo's willingness to help. The bike has also been used for emergencies. One evening earlier this year, a neighbor's 4-year-old child suffered a deep cut while playing in the dirt. With the child's parents away, Abalo transported the bleeding boy to a facility where he briefly lost consciousness before being revived. 'That bike, not me, saved the life of that child,' Abalo said. 'If that bike hadn't been there, I don't know what would have happened.'
Arab News
3 days ago
- Arab News
New study says planting trees alone to offset effects of fossil fuels is not enough
Planting trees has plenty of benefits, but this popular carbon-removal method alone can't possibly counteract the planet-warming emissions caused by the world's largest fossil-fuel companies. To do that, trees would have to cover the entire land mass of North and Central America, according to a study out Thursday. Many respected climate scientists and institutions say removing carbon emissions — not just reducing them — is essential to tackling climate change. And trees remove carbon simply by 'breathing.' But crunching the numbers, researchers found that the trees' collective ability to remove carbon through photosynthesis can't stand up to the potential emissions from the fossil fuel reserves of the 200 largest oil, gas and coal fuel companies — there's not enough available land on Earth to feasibly accomplish that. And even if there were, if those 200 companies had to pay for planting all those trees, it would cost $10.8 trillion, more than their entire combined market valuation of $7.01 trillion. The researchers also determined that the companies would be in the red if they were responsible for the social costs of the carbon in their reserves, which scientists compute around $185 per metric ton of carbon dioxide. 'The general public maybe understand offsetting to be a sort of magic eraser, and that's just not where we're at,' said Nina Friggens, a research fellow at the University of Exeter who co-authored the paper published in Communications Earth & Environment, a Nature Portfolio journal. Carbon offsetting essentially means investing in tree planting or other environmental projects to attempt to compensate for carbon emissions. Trees are one of the cheapest ways to do this because they naturally suck up planet-warming carbon. Fossil fuel corporations, along with other companies and institutions, have promoted tree-planting as key part of carbon offset programs in recent years. For example, TotalEnergies, a global energy company, said in a statement that it is 'investing heavily in carbon capture and storage (CCS) and nature-based solutions (NBS) projects.' To do their calculations, the researchers looked at the 200 largest holders of fossil fuel reserves — the fuel that companies promise shareholders they can extract in the future — and calculated how much carbon dioxide would be released if this fuel is burned. The researchers also focused solely on tree planting because the expense and technological development needed for other forms of carbon capture are still mostly cost-prohibitive. Forestry expert Éliane Ubalijoro, who was not involved with the research, called the study 'elegant.' It 'gives people a sense of proportion around carbon,' said Ubalijoro, CEO of CIFOR-ICRAF, an international forestry research center. But she cautioned against oversimplifying the equation by looking only at carbon capture, noting that tree planting done right can foster food security and biodiversity and protect communities from natural disasters. The paper effectively makes the point that it's financially impossible to offset enough carbon to compensate for future fossil fuel burning, said Daphne Yin, director of land policy at Carbon180, where her team advocates for US policy support for land-based carbon removal. And the idea that companies would be required to account for the downstream emissions from the fossil fuel they extract is a 'fantasy,' she said. The idea of planting trees is appealing to the public and to politicians because it's tangible — people can literally see the carbon being incorporated into branches and leaves as a tree grows, Friggens said. But she says other methods shouldn't be overlooked — microbes underground store carbon too, but they can't be seen. And it's a physically and mathematically inescapable fact, illustrated in part by this study, that there's no getting around it — we have to stop emitting carbon, said Jonathan Foley, the executive director of Project Drawdown, who also was not part of the study. Carbon emissions are like an overflowing bathtub, he says: Before you start cleaning up, you have to turn off the water. 'Trees are the sponges and the mops we use to clean up the mess," he said. "But if the taps are still running and the water's pouring out over the edges of your bathtub, destroying your bathroom and your home, maybe you've got to learn to turn off the taps too.'
Arab News
3 days ago
- Arab News
Want to plant trees to offset fossil fuels? You'd need all of North and Central America, study finds
Planting trees has plenty of benefits, but this popular carbon-removal method alone can't possibly counteract the planet-warming emissions caused by the world's largest fossil-fuel companies. To do that, trees would have to cover the entire land mass of North and Central America, according to a study out Thursday. Many respected climate scientists and institutions say removing carbon emissions — not just reducing them — is essential to tackling climate change. And trees remove carbon simply by "breathing." But crunching the numbers, researchers found that the trees' collective ability to remove carbon through photosynthesis can't stand up to the potential emissions from the fossil fuel reserves of the 200 largest oil, gas and coal fuel companies — there's not enough available land on Earth to feasibly accomplish that. And even if there were, if those 200 companies had to pay for planting all those trees, it would cost $10.8 trillion, more than their entire combined market valuation of $7.01 trillion. The researchers also determined that the companies would be in the red if they were responsible for the social costs of the carbon in their reserves, which scientists compute around $185 per metric ton of carbon dioxide. 'The general public maybe understand offsetting to be a sort of magic eraser, and that's just not where we're at,' said Nina Friggens, a research fellow at the University of Exeter who co-authored the paper published in Communications Earth & Environment, a Nature Portfolio journal. Carbon offsetting essentially means investing in tree planting or other environmental projects to attempt to compensate for carbon emissions. Trees are one of the cheapest ways to do this because they naturally suck up planet-warming carbon. Fossil fuel corporations, along with other companies and institutions, have promoted tree-planting as key part of carbon offset programs in recent years. For example, TotalEnergies, a global energy company, said in a statement that it is 'investing heavily in carbon capture and storage (CCS) and nature-based solutions (NBS) projects.' To do their calculations, the researchers looked at the 200 largest holders of fossil fuel reserves — the fuel that companies promise shareholders they can extract in the future — and calculated how much carbon dioxide would be released if this fuel is burned. The researchers also focused solely on tree planting because the expense and technological development needed for other forms of carbon capture are still mostly cost-prohibitive. Forestry expert Éliane Ubalijoro, who was not involved with the research, called the study 'elegant.' It 'gives people a sense of proportion around carbon,' said Ubalijoro, CEO of CIFOR-ICRAF, an international forestry research center. But she cautioned against oversimplifying the equation by looking only at carbon capture, noting that tree planting done right can foster food security and biodiversity and protect communities from natural disasters. The paper effectively makes the point that it's financially impossible to offset enough carbon to compensate for future fossil fuel burning, said Daphne Yin, director of land policy at Carbon180, where her team advocates for US policy support for land-based carbon removal. And the idea that companies would be required to account for the downstream emissions from the fossil fuel they extract is a 'fantasy,' she said. The idea of planting trees is appealing to the public and to politicians because it's tangible — people can literally see the carbon being incorporated into branches and leaves as a tree grows, Friggens said. But she says other methods shouldn't be overlooked — microbes underground store carbon too, but they can't be seen. And it's a physically and mathematically inescapable fact, illustrated in part by this study, that there's no getting around it — we have to stop emitting carbon, said Jonathan Foley, the executive director of Project Drawdown, who also was not part of the study. Carbon emissions are like an overflowing bathtub, he says: Before you start cleaning up, you have to turn off the water. 'Trees are the sponges and the mops we use to clean up the mess," he said. "But if the taps are still running and the water's pouring out over the edges of your bathtub, destroying your bathroom and your home, maybe you've got to learn to turn off the taps too.'
