Should coral fragging be banned?

[Toob]

It’s painfully clear that the vast majority of folks responding here did not read the article. Including, sadly, the OP.

 

[Lionfish hunter]

Superior in that one specific way which is actually part of the authors point. If all of species "x" is fantastic at surviving that specific cause of a bleaching event then great for that specific scenario. However if the restoration led to scenarios where that strain of species "x" is all that exists on the reef how do you know it is going to survive the bleaching event of a different cause. Maybe it was another genetic strain that would have fared better.

In fact what this author is suggesting is more in line with current research i have read and things are changing more in the direction he suggests they do(more focus on sexual reproduction, more focus on diversity in restoration projects, much less focus on divers just randomly fragging and placing chunks all over, etc)

Well considering most hard coral will be dead in the not that distant future due to temperature related bleaching, other issues would be irrelevant if this isn’t done. You can set your watch to it. If the water goes high enough above the average max temp, almost all the corals will die. The world isn’t getting any colder. There are people that have looked at ocean temperatures, pinpointed where the bleaching would take place, and shot before and after photographs. Also where are you getting all of a specific reef would be just 1 species in your species x scenario? That is not how reef restoration works.

 

[Lionfish hunter]

I’ll do my best to answer concisely, but already know I’ll fail. Haha.

Just fragging colonies and placing them on the same reef in the wild is ultimately just the same genetic material, so if certain areas of the reef are being bleached or dieing off due to disease or pest pressures, those frage will most likely succumb to the same problems the mother colony will. Not with 100% certainty, but most likely same outcomes. That is what the article is ultimately arguing, that the only way out of the reef die off is to have more genetic diversity. That happens through spawning, where we will potentially get a stronger coral with slightly different genetic code, a genetic code that can withstand a bleaching event, rasing temps, lowered salinity, high acidification, more disease pressure, or pest pressure. So frags Can’t be the answer there.

1. We can not be the ultimate savior, but we can be a small part of the solution. It was also mentioned earlier, but the Florida pillar example is a coral being helped to re-adapt to the Florida reefs. It is true that had human intervention not stepped in, it could very possibly have gone extinct. But really what restoration efforts are doing is to try and gene bank the pillar coral as a way to spawn new pillar coral to reintroduce to the wild. That is not the solution. We don’t have enough resources to do this for all coral. So while we can gene bank a lot of coral (which Sea world actually does do), this is just a way to maintain what’s out there, still dieing off and still bleaching. So wild restoration is still the goal. But gene banking has a place, especially if the gene banked coral can be spawned and create new genetic lines to reintroduce to the wild for potential survival.

2. This would be nice, and is definetly a unique idea. But this is just a further gene bank. Also, reefers tend to like the fancy colors and shapes, so I doubt many would be willing to have a browner or less interesting coral in their tanks. The corals, especially recently, have been picked for their vivid nature, and is not entirely representative of what’s out in nature. We humans tend to cherry pick .

3. totally agree. It was click bait for sure. And I bit. I typically don’t engage, but this is clearly a conversation I can speak intelligently on.

4. Resources is the key line here. Almost anything can be done with (lots of) money, but recreating or rebuilding natural habitats that took thousands of years to create, is difficult and takes time. Things only grow so fast. And creating genetic diversity is also time consuming. Maybe instead of heading to Mars or sending a few people in a ***** shaped rocket ship to near earth orbit, that money could help rebuild our crumbling reefs and oceans. So I agree. Resources and attention are key.

Frags could be the answer. If an area completely bleached except certain corals survive. Then fragging those corals would be spreading the genes of the only corals on that reef capable of surviving a bleaching event. Those corals sexually reproduced a superior coral to temperature in this situation. Then they are fragged.

Also! When you frag a reef and move them to another area. Those corals grow out and sexually reproduce giving more genetic diversity. If they weren't fragged and put on a dead patch of reef, that dead patch of reef would not have corals reproducing.

 

[Lionfish hunter]

@Streetcred -Your moniker seems to fit. Thanks for the link.
Just go take a look at the pictures of the reef dying and being reborn in the same season of death? If you think the reefs are dying all over the world you may be listening to the wrong information channels?

Still, the last thing I want to be spending money on is a big reef out planting of frags onto this reef, or any wild reef by save the reef folks who have a plan to save/fix the environment. Peer reviewed documentation of their methods might change my mind if they can show how they plan to duplicate the random settlement of wild coral larvae without selection bias in their frag site location and attachment processes.

I support the reef by not meddling with it except to nip a few growing tips, or grab some natural frags from off the substrate when I find them. Same damage is caused by natural processes on a routine basis, ie "sustainable."

50% of the great barrier reef is dead, this is not some environmental scam. Charlie Veron has over 100 publications on corals and was the first scientist employed by the Australian Institute of Marine Science. He is the world leader on coral taxonomy and has been diving on the great barrier reef longer than just about anybody. He is abundantly clear that the great barrier reef is dying. There is really no debate on this. Ignore it if you want, but you are posing straight misinformation.

 

[MiniGbr]

It’s painfully clear that the vast majority of folks responding here did not read the article. Including, sadly, the OP.

Haha. Indeed. That click bait got me good

 

[TaylorPilot]

LOL...would hate to end of up a real reef full of Whittakers...

 

[polyppal]

Lets ban pinecones to save the trees while were at it, Chad

 

[kingoftheHiLLpeople]

I don’t want to call anyone out specifically, but there’s a few.

Also, the whole ‘other countries cause the vast majority of pollution’ argument is at best just incorrect, and at worst it’s gross western supremacy (that’s not even based in reality). The US (and Canada and Australia) has a per capita emissions rate that is twice that of China, India, Mexico, Brazil, and pretty much every country that people like to point fingers at when they make this kind of argument (Mexico isn’t even in the top fifty, and the only countries higher than the US are all the middle eastern countries that produce the world’s fossil fuels).

I’m also perplexed as to what the point of making such an argument is. Expecting poor, under developed countries to reduce carbon emissions at the same rate developed nations are (even though those developed nations emit substantially more per capita), and then saying some variation of either ‘well, if they’re not, why should we’ or ‘well, we’re not doing all we could, but it’s more than xyz country is doing, so it’s good enough’. The clock is ticking, someone needs to be the adult in the room, take the lead, and set an example.

Uh oh - global warming debates are an exercise in futility. Seriously has anyone convinced anyone of an opposing viewpoint? It’s right up there with me trying to convince my ex bro in law that Pike was the best captain of the Enterprise - not Picard. No matter how much I pounded the table he still came back w/ “and the Kelvin timeline doesn’t count.”

 

[MiniGbr]

Frags could be the answer. If an area completely bleached except certain corals survive. Then fragging those corals would be spreading the genes of the only corals on that reef capable of surviving a bleaching event. Those corals sexually reproduced a superior coral to temperature in this situation. Then they are fragged.

Also! When you frag a reef and move them to another area. Those corals grow out and sexually reproduce giving more genetic diversity. If they weren't fragged and put on a dead patch of reef, that dead patch of reef would not have corals reproducing.

In theory and sentiment, this is a good idea, but in reality it leads mostly to creating a monoculture unfortunately. Fragging a healthy coral from a bleaching event to test survivability traits on other reefs is a different story, and is done in order to aid diversity.

As an aside, an interesting read that highlights the dangers of monoculture is the history of bananas and the banana apocalypse. This is the same risk that a reef would face from fragging one or a few survivors of a bleaching event. If there are any survivors at all to propagate.

I do agree that rebuilding the reef is important, but not through a monocultured manor such as strictly fragging.

 

[KrisReef]

50% of the great barrier reef is dead, this is not some environmental scam. Charlie Veron has over 100 publications on corals and was the first scientist employed by the Australian Institute of Marine Science. He is the world leader on coral taxonomy and has been diving on the great barrier reef longer than just about anybody. He is abundantly clear that the great barrier reef is dying. There is really no debate on this. Ignore it if you want, but you are posing straight misinformation.

What miss information am I posting?
We should examine your statement : "50% of the great barrier reef is dead."

What does that mean? It is not true that 1/2 of the corals on GBR died from anything other than natural causes if you are going to claim it's 1/2 dead. Not True.

If you look a a coral itself, the living tissue is very thin, so considering the inside skeleton is dead, you may be correct.

The fact that the reefs themselves are standing on the dead skeletons of their ancestors, I would say that the living portion only represents a very small fraction of the historical coral that is now buried below the living.

Veron wrote a wonderful encyclopedia of coral (I have the three volumes) but research to save the coral is money driven, imo. I know the difference between my opinion and fact and I do look to keep these as close together as I might.

Please take a look at the pictures of the dead reef from this year. https://jennifermarohasy.com/2022/07/john-brewer-reef-back-to-beige/

And read the article Rev posted. They share the same passion for the reef and for keeping it real. Nothing about the hobby, just casual mention that aquariums are not the topic.

 

[KrisReef]

In theory and sentiment, this is a good idea, but in reality it leads mostly to creating a monoculture unfortunately. Fragging a healthy coral from a bleaching event to test survivability traits on other reefs is a different story, and is done in order to aid diversity.

As an aside, an interesting read that highlights the dangers of monoculture is the history of bananas and the banana apocalypse. This is the same risk that a reef would face from fragging one or a few survivors of a bleaching event. If there are any survivors at all to propagate.

I do agree that rebuilding the reef is important, but not through a monocultured manor such as strictly fragging.

I totally forgot about banana's! Excellent point!

Warning: Do not try to frag a banana with a drill motor!

Thanks for returning this thread to civility @MiniGbr

 

[MaxTremors]

PS - here is a list of the countries - per capita - of CO2 emissions. The US is not in the top 10 per capita - showing what a misleading statistic that is.

#	Country	CO2 Emissions (tons, 2016)	1 Year Change	Population (2016)	Per capita	Share of world
40	Qatar	98,990,085	1.79%	2,654,374	37.29	0.28%
92	Montenegro	16,249,039	2.27%	627,264	25.90	0.05%
39	Kuwait	101,492,225	1.36%	3,956,875	25.65	0.28%
72	Trinidad and Tobago	34,974,263	-5.92%	1,377,560	25.39	0.10%
28	United Arab Emirates	218,788,684	4.43%	9,360,980	23.37	0.61%
42	Oman	87,835,773	2.09%	4,479,219	19.61	0.25%
7	Canada	675,918,610	-1.00%	36,382,944	18.58	1.89%
115	Brunei	7,672,127	3.54%	419,800	18.28	0.02%
99	Luxembourg	10,144,632	3.45%	579,264	17.51	0.03%
80	Bahrain	24,458,384	2.50%	1,425,792	17.15	0.07%
14	Australia	414,988,700	-0.98%	24,262,712	17.10	1.16%
83	Estonia	22,402,414	1.01%	1,316,510	17.02	0.06%
177	Gibraltar	572,708	3.53%	33,737	16.98	0.00%
202	Falkland Islands	48,568	1.51%	2,928	16.59	0.00%
11	Saudi Arabia	517,079,407	0.92%	32,443,447	15.94	1.45%
2	United States	5,011,686,600	-2.01%	323,015,995	15.52	14.02%
45	Turkmenistan	79,279,216	0.63%	5,662,368	14.00	0.22%
26	Kazakhstan	231,919,540	1.64%	17,830,901	13.01	0.65%
9	South Korea	604,043,830	0.45%	50,983,457	11.85	1.69%
137	Iceland	3,923,884	1.62%	332,206	11.81	0.01%
21	Taiwan	276,724,868	1.91%	23,618,200	11.72	0.77%
134	Bahamas	4,404,247	1.51%	377,930	11.65	0.01%
4	Russia	1,661,899,300	-2.13%	145,275,383	11.44	4.65%
37	Czech Republic (Czechia)	111,825,428	1.39%	10,618,857	10.53	0.31%
175	Bermuda	639,352	1.51%	63,362	10.09	0.00%
5	Japan	1,239,592,060	-1.21%	127,763,265	9.70	3.47%
33	Netherlands	163,419,285	1.63%	16,981,295	9.62	0.46%
6	Germany	775,752,190	1.28%	82,193,768	9.44	2.17%
57	Finland	51,183,960	3.62%	5,497,713	9.31	0.14%
23	Malaysia	266,251,542	6.54%	30,684,654	8.68	0.74%
61	Singapore	48,381,759	2.56%	5,653,634	8.56	0.14%
148	New Caledonia	2,338,717	7.22%	274,191	8.53	0.01%
49	Austria	73,764,112	1.54%	8,747,301	8.43	0.21%
41	Belgium	94,722,813	1.53%	11,354,420	8.34	0.26%
68	Ireland	39,086,565	5.09%	4,695,779	8.32	0.11%
64	Norway	43,456,012	0.85%	5,250,949	8.28	0.12%
56	Libya	52,696,075	1.52%	6,492,162	8.12	0.15%
8	Iran	642,560,030	2.22%	79,563,989	8.08	1.80%
51	Israel	65,201,588	-0.38%	8,108,985	8.04	0.18%
20	Poland	296,659,670	2.67%	37,989,220	7.81	0.83%
78	Bosnia and Herzegovina	25,674,120	0.86%	3,386,266	7.58	0.07%
1	China	10,432,751,400	-0.28%	1,414,049,351	7.38	29.18%
144	Martinique	2,715,477	1.72%	376,791	7.21	0.01%
74	New Zealand	33,276,202	-0.14%	4,659,265	7.14	0.09%
59	Bulgaria	50,872,910	-6.00%	7,151,953	7.11	0.14%
93	Slovenia	14,722,601	2.35%	2,074,210	7.10	0.04%
15	South Africa	390,557,850	-0.49%	56,207,646	6.95	1.09%
71	Slovakia	36,817,242	1.74%	5,442,003	6.77	0.10%
70	Denmark	38,007,645	5.23%	5,711,349	6.65	0.11%
52	Belarus	62,655,669	4.90%	9,445,643	6.63	0.18%
62	Hong Kong	47,066,386	1.23%	7,243,542	6.50	0.13%
183	Cayman Islands	406,057	1.52%	62,569	6.49	0.00%
50	Greece	67,840,662	-3.47%	10,615,185	6.39	0.19%
146	Guadeloupe	2,478,038	1.84%	399,763	6.20	0.01%
87	Mongolia	18,574,260	18.09%	3,056,364	6.08	0.05%
18	Italy	358,139,550	0.84%	60,663,060	5.90	1.00%
32	Venezuela	175,884,256	-1.90%	29,851,255	5.89	0.49%
117	Cyprus	6,872,427	3.73%	1,170,187	5.87	0.02%
17	United Kingdom	367,860,350	-6.38%	66,297,944	5.55	1.03%
162	French Guiana	1,473,719	1.73%	267,821	5.50	0.00%
180	Seychelles	519,693	2.62%	95,710	5.43	0.00%
24	Spain	251,892,320	-3.12%	46,634,140	5.40	0.70%
160	Barbados	1,541,447	1.88%	285,796	5.39	0.00%
58	Hungary	51,018,899	2.16%	9,752,975	5.23	0.14%
25	Ukraine	233,220,080	8.03%	44,713,702	5.22	0.65%
150	Malta	2,257,870	3.48%	436,097	5.18	0.01%
19	France	331,533,320	2.11%	64,667,596	5.13	0.93%
141	Macao	3,106,518	7.19%	612,836	5.07	0.01%
178	Grenada	554,848	1.51%	110,261	5.03	0.00%
60	Portugal	50,142,844	-2.36%	10,325,538	4.86	0.14%
95	Lithuania	13,685,264	2.66%	2,889,557	4.74	0.04%
67	Switzerland	39,666,930	-2.30%	8,379,917	4.73	0.11%
65	Serbia	41,168,059	2.27%	8,853,963	4.65	0.12%
182	Antigua and Barbuda	438,763	1.51%	94,527	4.64	0.00%
16	Turkey	368,122,740	5.25%	79,827,871	4.61	1.03%
30	Argentina	200,708,270	0.16%	43,508,460	4.61	0.56%
86	Croatia	19,408,194	3.02%	4,208,602	4.61	0.05%
63	Sweden	44,694,415	4.33%	9,836,007	4.54	0.13%
44	Chile	81,258,525	5.33%	18,209,068	4.46	0.23%
34	Iraq	162,646,160	1.22%	36,610,632	4.44	0.45%
108	North Macedonia	8,896,732	1.62%	2,080,743	4.28	0.02%
139	Guyana	3,253,057	1.61%	771,368	4.22	0.01%
113	Latvia	8,157,157	3.41%	1,974,266	4.13	0.02%
46	Romania	78,770,824	1.69%	19,796,285	3.98	0.22%
22	Thailand	271,040,160	1.55%	68,971,308	3.93	0.76%
192	Saint Kitts & Nevis	203,036	1.51%	51,625	3.93	0.00%
35	Algeria	156,220,560	0.17%	40,551,392	3.85	0.44%
152	Suriname	2,152,933	0.32%	564,888	3.81	0.01%
170	French Polynesia	1,003,249	7.18%	274,575	3.65	0.00%
13	Mexico	441,412,750	-2.13%	123,333,376	3.58	1.23%
38	Uzbekistan	109,347,340	1.60%	31,441,751	3.48	0.31%
73	Azerbaijan	33,614,235	-0.41%	9,736,043	3.45	0.09%
197	British Virgin Islands	99,762	1.51%	29,355	3.40	0.00%
176	Saint Lucia	608,182	1.51%	180,024	3.38	0.00%
184	St. Vincent & Grenadines	362,414	1.51%	109,459	3.31	0.00%
84	Lebanon	21,863,288	1.95%	6,714,281	3.26	0.06%
107	Jamaica	8,946,575	1.82%	2,906,236	3.08	0.03%
168	Belize	1,114,105	1.51%	368,400	3.02	0.00%
123	Botswana	6,438,429	-3.74%	2,159,927	2.98	0.02%
97	Panama	11,599,764	2.37%	4,037,078	2.87	0.03%
127	Gabon	5,694,208	1.12%	2,007,873	2.84	0.02%
188	Aruba	286,871	1.51%	104,872	2.74	0.00%
76	Cuba	30,389,116	1.65%	11,335,104	2.68	0.08%
193	Dominica	185,767	1.51%	71,307	2.61	0.00%
77	Tunisia	29,395,965	0.82%	11,303,945	2.60	0.08%
166	Maldives	1,233,015	7.19%	475,512	2.59	0.00%
140	Mauritius	3,192,307	0.00%	1,261,865	2.53	0.01%
190	Tonga	251,375	7.19%	101,133	2.49	0.00%
66	Ecuador	40,065,690	-4.85%	16,491,116	2.43	0.11%
82	Jordan	22,772,370	1.83%	9,554,286	2.38	0.06%
203	Palau	41,732	7.19%	17,725	2.35	0.00%
27	Egypt	219,377,350	4.72%	94,447,073	2.32	0.61%
53	North Korea	58,708,734	19.49%	25,307,665	2.32	0.16%
157	Bhutan	1,682,100	6.14%	736,708	2.28	0.00%
81	Dominican Republic	23,466,740	2.88%	10,397,741	2.26	0.07%
12	Brazil	462,994,920	-6.08%	206,163,053	2.25	1.29%
29	Vietnam	206,042,140	0.09%	93,640,422	2.20	0.58%
206	Saint Helena	13,128	2.62%	5,956	2.20	0.00%
69	Syria	38,054,696	1.78%	17,465,575	2.18	0.11%
109	Georgia	8,610,414	2.94%	4,015,450	2.14	0.02%
204	Cook Islands	37,354	7.19%	17,524	2.13	0.00%
205	Anguilla	30,262	1.52%	14,429	2.10	0.00%
10	Indonesia	530,035,650	6.41%	261,556,381	2.03	1.48%
111	Moldova	8,258,774	2.99%	4,066,009	2.03	0.02%
156	Fiji	1,703,193	7.28%	872,399	1.95	0.00%
3	India	2,533,638,100	4.71%	1,324,517,249	1.91	7.09%
121	Uruguay	6,508,013	1.91%	3,424,129	1.90	0.02%
55	Peru	57,692,879	8.16%	30,926,032	1.87	0.16%
130	Albania	5,208,319	4.45%	2,886,438	1.80	0.01%
199	Turks and Caicos	65,451	1.52%	36,559	1.79	0.00%
151	Equatorial Guinea	2,156,371	0.00%	1,215,180	1.77	0.01%
85	Bolivia	19,463,728	2.03%	11,031,814	1.76	0.05%
110	Costa Rica	8,328,890	2.16%	4,899,345	1.70	0.02%
138	Namibia	3,901,830	4.42%	2,358,044	1.65	0.01%
54	Morocco	57,694,464	0.54%	35,126,283	1.64	0.16%
161	Djibouti	1,508,851	2.97%	929,112	1.62	0.00%
47	Colombia	77,667,594	-0.84%	48,175,052	1.61	0.22%
132	Armenia	4,597,845	3.06%	2,936,143	1.57	0.01%
207	Saint Pierre & Miquelon	8,842	1.51%	5,934	1.49	0.00%
167	Réunion	1,132,331	3.55%	869,743	1.30	0.00%
36	Philippines	126,922,662	12.37%	103,663,816	1.22	0.35%
116	Kyrgyzstan	6,941,784	2.53%	6,074,330	1.14	0.02%
88	Guatemala	18,539,316	2.42%	16,583,076	1.12	0.05%
106	Papua New Guinea	9,086,988	7.09%	8,271,762	1.10	0.03%
118	El Salvador	6,853,766	0.45%	6,356,143	1.08	0.02%
75	Angola	30,566,933	3.13%	28,842,489	1.06	0.09%
129	Congo	5,212,302	1.63%	4,980,996	1.05	0.01%
105	Honduras	9,320,279	2.25%	9,270,795	1.01	0.03%
79	Yemen	25,647,990	1.62%	27,168,208	0.94	0.07%
125	Paraguay	5,998,469	1.97%	6,777,872	0.89	0.02%
89	Sri Lanka	18,454,691	8.55%	21,021,171	0.88	0.05%
31	Pakistan	178,013,820	9.13%	203,631,353	0.87	0.50%
194	Samoa	169,939	7.18%	194,535	0.87	0.00%
128	Nicaragua	5,325,447	1.86%	6,303,974	0.84	0.01%
100	Zimbabwe	10,062,628	-4.17%	14,030,331	0.72	0.03%
124	Tajikistan	6,049,757	3.37%	8,663,579	0.70	0.02%
133	Laos	4,531,276	7.92%	6,845,846	0.66	0.01%
145	Mauritania	2,564,345	3.32%	4,163,533	0.62	0.01%
120	Benin	6,563,709	4.13%	10,872,063	0.60	0.02%
174	Eswatini	657,572	2.61%	1,113,997	0.59	0.00%
112	Senegal	8,247,295	3.69%	14,993,519	0.55	0.02%
185	Solomon Islands	341,748	7.18%	619,438	0.55	0.00%
94	Ghana	14,469,986	3.54%	28,481,945	0.51	0.04%
195	Vanuatu	137,706	7.18%	278,330	0.49	0.00%
48	Bangladesh	74,476,230	4.50%	157,977,153	0.47	0.21%
201	Kiribati	52,818	7.18%	112,524	0.47	0.00%
43	Nigeria	82,634,214	0.70%	185,960,241	0.44	0.23%
101	Côte d'Ivoire	10,056,492	1.16%	23,822,714	0.42	0.03%
122	Cambodia	6,496,958	7.68%	15,766,292	0.41	0.02%
181	Timor-Leste	495,687	4.63%	1,219,288	0.41	0.00%
104	Cameroon	9,454,331	2.21%	23,926,551	0.40	0.03%
191	Western Sahara	207,592	2.61%	538,749	0.39	0.00%
136	South Sudan	4,038,496	4.18%	10,832,518	0.37	0.01%
91	Kenya	16,334,919	3.60%	49,051,534	0.33	0.05%
96	Sudan	13,294,106	4.18%	39,847,439	0.33	0.04%
90	Myanmar	16,701,776	5.61%	53,045,201	0.31	0.05%
149	Togo	2,321,546	5.47%	7,509,951	0.31	0.01%
114	Nepal	7,833,787	10.10%	27,263,433	0.29	0.02%
102	Afghanistan	9,900,004	7.13%	35,383,032	0.28	0.03%
142	Haiti	3,086,897	1.71%	10,839,970	0.28	0.01%
200	Sao Tome & Principe	56,185	2.60%	203,227	0.28	0.00%
135	Zambia	4,230,584	3.67%	16,363,458	0.26	0.01%
172	Puerto Rico	712,758	1.71%	3,283,125	0.22	0.00%
126	Mozambique	5,859,171	2.22%	27,829,938	0.21	0.02%
173	Eritrea	684,140	4.79%	3,376,557	0.20	0.00%
198	Cabo Verde	99,687	2.59%	531,146	0.19	0.00%
103	Tanzania	9,731,560	2.50%	53,049,230	0.18	0.03%
154	Guinea	2,071,798	3.20%	11,738,429	0.18	0.01%
171	Liberia	846,658	3.49%	4,586,787	0.18	0.00%
186	Guinea-Bissau	318,706	2.59%	1,782,438	0.18	0.00%
164	Sierra Leone	1,272,332	3.43%	7,328,834	0.17	0.00%
187	Lesotho	318,438	2.58%	2,075,030	0.15	0.00%
196	Comoros	108,422	2.58%	795,592	0.14	0.00%
131	Uganda	5,009,493	3.82%	39,649,166	0.13	0.01%
147	Burkina Faso	2,352,070	3.14%	18,646,357	0.13	0.01%
143	Madagascar	3,026,047	2.85%	24,894,370	0.12	0.01%
163	Rwanda	1,403,087	2.88%	11,668,827	0.12	0.00%
179	Central African Republic	543,229	2.57%	4,537,686	0.12	0.00%
189	Gambia	254,127	2.59%	2,149,136	0.12	0.00%
155	Malawi	1,815,598	3.26%	17,205,261	0.11	0.01%
158	Chad	1,670,941	2.14%	14,561,660	0.11	0.00%
98	Ethiopia	10,438,855	4.03%	103,603,462	0.10	0.03%
153	Niger	2,088,475	0.15%	20,788,798	0.10	0.01%
169	Burundi	1,093,618	2.81%	10,487,995	0.10	0.00%
159	Mali	1,606,421	2.57%	17,965,443	0.09	0.00%
165	Somalia	1,268,442	2.57%	14,185,636	0.09	0.00%
119	DR Congo	6,564,773	3.77%	78,789,127	0.08	0.02%
208	Faeroe Islands	1,953	0.60%	48,173	0.04	0.00%
209	Greenland	1,530	0.86%	56,412	0.03	0.00%

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions by Country - Worldometer

Sources​

• Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR)
• CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion - IEA
• World Population Prospects: The 2019 Revision - United Nations Population Division

Gauging carbon emissions per capita is the only fair, equitable way to do it. I just want to make sure I’m understanding you, you’re saying that if a country has more land and more people, it should have the same total carbon emissions as a much smaller country with far fewer people (since your opinion is that it’s the total emissions by country that matters)? Countries with less people can consume more? That makes sense or seems equitable to you?

The only logical and ethical way by which to set carbon emissions standards is per capita. China produces ~30% of emissions and has 18.4% of the worlds population, the US produces 14% of emissions and has 4.25% of the population, the average US citizen had a carbon footprint over twice the size of the average Chinese citizen. So how is it fair to say that the Chinese need to lower their emissions more than the US does? China absolutely does need to lower their emissions, but they’re closer to where they should be than we are to where we should be. I agree with you every country should be under agreement to lower their per capita emission.

There also needs to be carbon credits/debts where countries that consume products or resources that have a high rate of emissions to produce from other countries, they take on some of the responsibility of the carbon created in making those products/resources, otherwise rich countries will continue to have high rates of energy consumption/carbon emissions while sticking poor countries with the carbon bill.

 

[Lionfish hunter]

What miss information am I posting?
We should examine your statement : "50% of the great barrier reef is dead."

What does that mean? It is not true that 1/2 of the corals on GBR died from anything other than natural causes if you are going to claim it's 1/2 dead. Not True.

If you look a a coral itself, the living tissue is very thin, so considering the inside skeleton is dead, you may be correct.

The fact that the reefs themselves are standing on the dead skeletons of their ancestors, I would say that the living portion only represents a very small fraction of the historical coral that is now buried below the living.

Veron wrote a wonderful encyclopedia of coral (I have the three volumes) but research to save the coral is money driven, imo. I know the difference between my opinion and fact and I do look to keep these as close together as I might.

Please take a look at the pictures of the dead reef from this year. https://jennifermarohasy.com/2022/07/john-brewer-reef-back-to-beige/

And read the article Rev posted. They share the same passion for the reef and for keeping it real. Nothing about the hobby, just casual mention that aquariums are not the topic.

I don’t doubt that they are making things out to be worse than it actually is in many cases. If you google christmas island coral health you will see a million articles on how the coral died in a bleaching event. But in reality it seems many have returned years later. The hotter it gets, these reefs will have a harder time recovering. I fear for the future of the reefs. Especially when people like Veron saying much of the corals are dying.

 

[doubleshot00]

9 people voted yes so far

 

[Adam1985]

I'll start by saying NO, Of course not, negative, NO WAY and that's just my opinion but I thought it could make for an interesting topic. How did I even come up with this question? Well I ran into this articled called Coral Fragging Should Be Banned. My hot take is the author believes the process should be banned based on genetic implications and adaptation. Let's talk about it!

1. Should coral fragging be banned?

2. What are your thoughts on genetic implications and adaptation issues (as the author states) caused by coral fragging?

image via @therman

So I haven’t read the article in it’s entirety… but, since the author says in the first section that the paper is about fragging activity with natural reefs for propagation or restoration stuff and not aquariums, because the author sees fragging in our hobby as an entirely positive practice… that this would be interesting only to those of us interested in the former?

Now I’ll read the rest but I definitely was not expecting that curveball when I initially read this post as had thought it was a piece directly related to our hobby.

 

[Eagle_Steve]

 

[MiniGbr]

My hope is that “rolling coal” won’t be as popular with diesel at $5.50. Maybe economic theory will finally kick in.

 

[Pntbll687]

SO the author wants to stop fragging because they believe that fragging corals (they specifically noted branching and plating hard corals) creates a monolith in the population where they are all susceptible to disease, and could cause even more destruction on the reef, as well as a sterile population because the more fragging done leads to less gamete production from the corals.

The point is valid and should be a concern, but the argument is very flawed. Fragging is a process that occurs in nature (as noted by the author) and there would be no way to monitor these processes as to which coral is fragged more and taking up more space when it shouldn't.

The main argument that this creates a genetic bottleneck where every coral (or a large percent of the population) is susceptible to disease and sudden die off, is stated as if we can currently test for these things to know which species have or don't have these genetic "defects". As far as I am aware, this type of testing does not exist. The author also fails to take into account that in order for corals to be fragged or propagated in these programs, THEY SURVIVED THIS FAR and are probably in the upper half of the population in resistance to temp/ph/disease/pests. The author seems to dismiss that there is the possibility that scientist are doing the exact opposite of what is hypothesized in the article.

Here's an excerpt from the abstract from one of the articles cited
"Proposed causes for loss of fitness as a result of (plant) restoration efforts include founder effects, genetic swamping, inbreeding and/or outbreeding depression. Direct evidence for any of these processes is scarce in reef corals due to a lack of model species that allow for testing over multiple generations and the separation of the relative contributions of algal symbionts and their coral hosts to the overall performance of the coral colony"

The main argument in some of the articles linked was that genetic diversity NEEDS to be considered when fragging operation are done, but more so that over 50% of the frags had perished by the 28 month mark, and that result did not seem to match the effort of taking the original specimen from the reef.

It's as if the author found articles with titles that matched what he wanted to say, but then didn't even read the articles, or even the abstracts from the articles.

Fragging SHOULD continue to help rebuild reefs that have been hardest hit by storm/disease/bleaching. I would hope that scientist have actually already taken into account the authors concerns when fragging and planting corals back to the reef.

 

[Pntbll687]

KEEP ROLLLLLIN!!!!!

 

[Eagle_Steve]

My hope is that “rolling coal” won’t be as popular with diesel at $5.50. Maybe economic theory will finally kick in.

Due to 5.50 diesel.