Great Barrier Reef could adapt to climate change, scientists say

Hoagy, the Danish nature-lover, gets a long overdue kick in the pants. Coral already grows in very warm waters -- in the Torres Strait, for instance. Species diversity is greatest there, in fact. Hoagy is a nut

The prediction of a prominent marine biologist that climate change could render the Great Barrier Reef extinct within 30 years has been labelled overly pessimistic for failing to account for the adaptive capabilities of coral reefs. University of Queensland marine biologist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg said yesterday that sea temperatures were likely to rise 2C over the next three decades, which would undoubtedly kill the reef. But several of Professor Hoegh-Guldberg's colleagues have taken issue with his prognosis.

Andrew Baird, principal research fellow at the Australian Research Council's Centre for Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, said there were "serious knowledge gaps" about the impact rising sea temperatures would have on coral. "Ove is very dismissive of coral's ability to adapt, to respond in an evolutionary manner to climate change," Dr Baird said. "I believe coral has an underappreciated capacity to evolve. It's one of the biological laws that, wherever you look, organisms have adapted to radical changes."

Dr Baird acknowledged that, if left unaddressed, climate change would result in major changes to the Great Barrier Reef. "There will be sweeping changes in the relative abundance of species," he said. "There'll be changes in what species occur where. "But wholesale destruction of reefs? I think that's overly pessimistic." Dr Baird said the adaptive qualities of coral reefs would mitigate the effects of climate change.

His comments were backed by Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority chairman and marine scientist Russell Reichelt. "I think that he's right," Dr Reichelt said. "The reef is more adaptable and research is coming out now to show adaptation is possible for the reef." Dr Reichelt said the greatest threat facing the reef was poor water quality in the coastal regions, the result of excess sediment and fertiliser. "If a reef's going to survive bleaching, you don't want to kill it with a dirty river," he said.

Professor Hoegh-Guldberg, who in 1999 won the prestigious Eureka science prize for his work on coral bleaching, said the view "that reefs somehow have some magical adaptation ability" was unfounded. "The other thing is, are we willing to take the risk, given we've got a more than 50 per cent likelihood that these scenarios are going to come up?" Professor Hoegh-Guldberg said. "If I asked (my colleagues) to get into my car and I told them it was more than 50 per cent likely to crash, I don't think they'd be very sensible getting in it."

He told the ABC's Lateline program on Thursday the threat posed by climate change to the Great Barrier Reef should be treated as a "global emergency". "Why we aren't just panicking at thispoint and starting to really make some changes? Professor Hoegh-Guldberg said. "It just ... it blows my mind sometimes."

Source






Challenges ahead for Australia

By Rupert Murdoch (Rupert Murdoch is chairman and chief executive of News Corporation. This is an edited extract of the first of his Boyer Lectures, Aussie Rules - Bring Back the Pioneer, delivered in Sydney last night.)

I appreciate that many Australians will debate whether I still have the right to call myself one of you. I was born in Melbourne, was educated in Britain and now make my home in Manhattan. My answer is that people can call me whatever they like - and believe me when I tell you, they do. But this country means a great deal to me. And the main reason I agreed to come to Australia to deliver these (Boyer) lectures is that the country I see before me simply is not prepared for the challenges ahead.

As I speak, the Australian economy is coming up against one of these challenges: a financial crisis whose origins are overseas. In recent weeks, the Australian dollar has fluctuated as wildly as a whirling Dervish, and the impact is beginning to be felt in the real economy. There is no use bemoaning the problem. Australia is wedded to the world - mostly for richer, very occasionally for poorer, certainly for better, and only rarely for worse. And I fear many Australians will learn the hard way what it means to be unprepared for the challenges a global economy can bring.

I want to start today by talking about some areas at home. By this I mean a need to reduce dependency on government, to reform our education system, to reconcile with Australia's Aboriginal population, and to maintain a liberal immigration system. At a time when the world's most competitive nations are moving their people off government subsidy, Australians seem to be headed in the wrong direction.

In a recent paper, Des Moore pointed out that while real incomes increased since the end of the 1980s, about 20 per cent of the working-aged population today receives income support, compared with only 15 per cent two decades ago. While a safety net is warranted for those in genuine need, we must avoid institutionalising idleness. The bludger should not be our national icon.

Traditionally the Liberals have been more free-market in their outlook than their opponents. But the Labor Party has also recognised that central planning does not work. The larger the government, the less room for Australians to exercise their talents and initiative. That is why earlier this year we heard a Labor Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, declaring that his Government is unashamedly pro-market, pro-business and pro-globalisation.

That's a good start. But being pro-market, pro-business and pro-globalisation means working for a society where citizens are not dependent on the Government. That means ending subsidies for those who do well. It also means sensible targeting and persistence - so that when subsidies are given, they help those passing through a rough patch or born into abject poverty build themselves up to a point where they can provide for themselves.

And it means smaller government and an end to the paternalism that nourishes political correctness, promotes government interference and undermines freedom and personal responsibility. Remember, it's not the Australian Government that competes in the global market, it's Australian businesses and workers. With the relatively small domestic market, Australian workers and businesses must be able to beat the best of them.

Second, we need to reform our education system. The bottom line is this: it is an absolute scandal that we are spending more and more and getting less and less in return. For those still in school or just entering the workforce, the opportunities a global economy offers are greater than at any time in our history - if you have the right skills.

Australians have always been a people who stress equality, who believe what you make of yourself is more important than where you came from. That's still a good philosophy for a frontier society. But let's be honest, tens of thousands of people are going to be deprived of these opportunities if we continue to tolerate a public education system that effectively writes off whole segments of Australian society. In short, we have a 21st-century economy with a 19th-century education system, and it is leaving too many children behind.

School reform leads me to the next domestic priority: full reconciliation among all Australians. We are now beyond the day when Australian governments would take Aboriginal babies from their mothers' arms and hand them over to be raised by white Australians. Even that action was inspired as much by ignorance as arrogance. Many of the missionaries of the past were full of good intent, but simply did not understand or respect Aboriginal culture.

Members of both major parties have made eloquent, clear-headed statements expressing regret for the historic injustices visited on our Aboriginal Australians. That there were victims, and many of them, is beyond dispute. But apologies alone will not achieve true reconciliation, and neither will allowing victimhood to remain dominant in our national psyche. Far from liberating our Aboriginal brothers and sisters from the colonial yoke, we have cultivated a well-intentioned but stultifying dependency. The best way to redress the past and advance true equality for all Australians is to ensure the next generation of Aboriginal children have access to top-quality schools and teachers, which they do not now have. Australia's system of public education can never be called a success until Aboriginal Australians benefit from it as much as any other citizens.

At the same time, we cannot avert our eyes to the abuse of women and children within Aboriginal communities. These are not simple problems. And they will remain serious problems until our response is informed more by true compassion and less by remorse.

Finally, Australia will be strong only if it is open to immigration. Thank goodness we are beyond where we were a few decades ago. In a relatively brief time, we have buried "White Australia" and in its place have raised a modern, diverse society. This does not mean we are neutral or valueless. We must expect immigrants to learn our language and embrace the principles that make Australia a decent and tolerant nation. At the same time, Australia needs to recognise that immigrants bring energy, skills and enthusiasm. They often better recognise the virtues of Australian society, virtues we are too shy or embarrassed to laud.

In my view, Australians should not worry because other people want to come to our country. The day to worry is when immigrants are no longer attracted to our shores. We should be a beacon to all. To our region in particular, we should be a living, happy, civil and contesting democracy that is a model for the emerging democracies around us.

Those are priorities for Australia on the home front. But Australia also has a role to play on the world stage. Part of this role is ensuring that Australian interests are represented and advanced internationally. In the 21st century, we must lead rather than react. In trade, for example, Australia is one of the few resource-rich societies that have embraced the open market. In many ways, our experience is the exception rather than the rule. Generally when nations have natural resources, they sit back and savour these resources rather than do the hard work of building a competitive economy around them.

Today Australia is probably the leading country for freedom in the area of trade that is most restricted around the world - agriculture. Restrictions on agriculture hurt many of the world's poorest nations, and we have both a moral and strategic interest in seeing them lifted. The global trade dialogue should echo with Australian accents.

Climate change is another area where Australia needs to lead rather than follow. I'm not sold on the more apocalyptic visions of climate change. But I do believe that the planet deserves the benefit of the doubt. I believe there will be great rewards for those Australians who discover new ways of reducing emissions or cleaning the environment. Here at News in Australia, we are encouraging that process through an initiative called One Degree. It's about every one of our people making small changes that together make a big difference. This program is part of a larger corporate initiative that is designed with a clear goal - to have all of our businesses around the world carbon-neutral by 2010. And we are counting on the talents and creativity of all our employees to meet that goal. Our emphasis should be on practical solutions. We cannot address climate change merely with emotion.

The ultimate solution is not to punish the Australian economy by imposing standards that the rest of the world will never meet. It's to take the lead in developing real alternatives to solve the problem by offering clean, cheap energy to meet the growing demand. The world desperately needs these cleaner and more abundant sources of energy. That will require huge investments in new technology. But the upside is huge. If we can develop cleaner and cheaper sources of energy, we will grow our economy while leaving a greener, cleaner world for our children and grandchildren.

Our world remains a dangerous place. In this promising new century we are still seeing naked, heartless aggression - whether it comes from a terrorist bombing in Islamabad or a Russian invasion of Georgia. At the same time, our traditional allies in Europe sometimes seem to have lost the will to confront aggression, even on their own doorstep. We can lament these developments, but we cannot hide from them. Throughout our past, Australian lives have always been affected by events in distant, unfamiliar places. That will remain true for the future. We need to be prepared to respond to these threats, as we have done in Iraq and are doing in Afghanistan.

But we need to be more than a reliable partner that the United States can call on. Australia needs to be part of a reform of the institutions most responsible for maintaining peace and stability. I'm thinking especially of NATO. Though NATO was designed to prevent a land war in Europe, it is now fighting well beyond its borders. As we see in Afghanistan, not everyone is doing their share, and that is a problem too many people want to ignore. The only path to reform NATO is to expand it to include nations like Australia. That way NATO will become a community based less on geography and more on common values. That is the only way NATO will be effective. And Australian leadership is critical to these efforts.

Finally, there is an even more fundamental constitutional question about our identity. Should Australia be a republic? There has been more maturity to this debate over the past couple of years, and there is now no need to rush to the exit. But the moment is not far away when the country will decide its fate. And if I were in a position to vote, it would be for a republic. The establishment of a republic of Australia will not slight the Queen, nor will it deny the British traditions, values and structures that have served us so well. But we are no longer a dependency, and we should be independent.

Source







Is Australia persecuting Falun Gong followers too?

It seems so. There is no doubt that Falun Gong followers are persecuted by the Chinese Communist regime -- even though they are a spiritual movement rather than a political one

The Immigration Department is endangering failed Falun Gong asylum seekers by forcing them to apply for travel documents from the Chinese consulate in Sydney, exposing their status to authorities and putting them in danger of persecution, refugee advocates say. One woman, Zhang Lilin (not her real name), now needs to file a sur place claim, one created when the Government's actions, in forcing her to go to the consulate, initiate a need for her protection.

A spokesman for the department denied that it alerted foreign authorities about former protection visa applicants. Australia deported 770 Chinese nationals in 2007-08 but the department could give no figure on what percentage of them were failed protection visa applicants.

The chairwoman of Balmain for Refugees, Frances Milne, who works with Chinese asylum seekers, said it was naive to assume, as the Australian Government did, that because it did not consider the asylum seeker a refugee, the Chinese Government would not be offended by a person claiming protection from alleged human rights abuses. Last month a Chinese consular officer told Ms Zhang that China opposed its citizens applying for asylum. "If you don't understand, I have to say simply this is policy. As you applied for a protection visa, you should know this is against the Chinese Government's policies." A transcript of that conversation has been sent to the Immigration Department.

The Chinese Government has described Falun Gong as an "evil cult" and banned its practice since 1999. Since then it has staged frequent crackdowns on practitioners, detaining and torturing members because of their religious beliefs, Amnesty International says.

Mrs Milne said "the crackdown on human rights protests throughout the Olympics clearly indicates that China is very sensitive and brutal when it has to defend its human rights record against overseas claims of human rights abuses". In a letter to the Immigration Minister, Mrs Milne said "the Government has created the situation where [Ms Zhang] needs to make a sur place claim for protection". She called on the minister to change departmental regulations that create such situations.

The Herald spoke with three Falun Gong practitioners who have had their claims for protection rejected, and are facing deportation. However, none of the women has a valid Chinese passport - two have expired passports and the third has lost hers since arriving in Australia - so new documents must be issued.

The three are caught in a Catch-22 scenario: the Department of Immigration, seeking to deport them, will only issue a bridging visa (removal pending) that allows them to stay if they present travel documents that show their intention to leave Australia. The Chinese consulate will only issue them with travel documents if they spell out the nature of the bridging visa E they are seeking. Fearing persecution from authorities, none of the women want to reveal they have applied for protection from China. A second woman, 57, who came here in 1999, was told to get a new passport or the department would send her to Villawood. She said, through an interpreter, that she went six times to the consulate, and each time she was refused help. The consulate had said her letter from the department did not clearly mention the immigration category so it would not take the application.

One time a consular officer asked her directly: "Are you applying for the refugee visa? They said if you are . you must give us all the [protection claim] documents. I dare not say directly [I am a refugee] because spies here take pictures of Falun Gong activities here," she said.

A third woman, 47, who arrived in 2002, gave the consulate with a letter from the Immigration Department requesting travel documents. The consulate asked "'What is an E visa? What kind of visa?' Finally I said I am a refugee and they threw [the passport application] back across the counter at me. They looked very angry." Despite the women's experience, a departmental spokesman said its officers would undertake to get travel documents for them if asked.

Source






The Dr. Moeller immigration case: Where is the flexibility at the political level over this?

The bureaucrats are just following their rules. The immigration minister should see that this is an exceptional case and intervene. Or has all that Leftist "compassion" gone out the window? The pic below is of the minister concened, the rather dimwitted Chris Evans



Former Cabinet minister Mary Delahunty has blasted Immigration officials over the handling of a migrant doctor's visa application, saying she is "flabbergasted at the stupidity". Dr Bernhard Moeller's application to stay in Australia was rejected last week because his son has Down syndrome.

The prospect of losing the only internal medical specialist at Horsham has outraged its residents, who have demanded the decision be overturned. Ms Delahunty yesterday revealed the German-born doctor had treated her late father in hospital at Horsham until August this year. "If we're serious about providing decent health care in regional Australia this decision has to be overturned," she said. "Why are we disadvantaging regional Australia? We must end this lunacy."

Ms Delahunty's comments follow Premier John Brumby's slamming of the decision to reject Dr Moeller because the potential long-term costs of caring for his 13-year-old son are too great. Mr Brumby said last week he was shocked to learn the specialist's application had been rejected, and had written to Immigration Minister Chris Evans demanding an urgent review.

Ms Delahunty, a former arts minister who retired before the last election, said she and her family got to know Dr Moeller this year, and was outraged the decision had not already been overturned. "We are so short of doctors in regional Australia, and you have to experience it to appreciate the disadvantage," she said. "I've been out of government coming up to two years and I've never spoken on anything, but there has to be an end to this lunacy, this doctor has to be allowed to stay."

Source