POLICY & REFORM campusreview. com. au
Reef rift
A senior marine environment researcher wades into the diplomatic trench between Australia and the US over climate change.
By Andrew Bracey
US president Barack Obama chose the University of Queensland as the venue for his now infamous speech voicing dire concern for the Great Barrier Reef’ s future – and it turned into an awkward moment in diplomacy and policy for the federal government.
Whilst Obama’ s appearance was a major PR coup for UQ on the sidelines of the recent Brisbane G20 Leaders ' Summit, his address drew rebukes from senior federal government ministers aggrieved at the
president’ s apparent criticisms of Australia’ s efforts to safeguard the reef from the impacts of climate change.
“ The incredible natural glory of the Great Barrier Reef is threatened,” Obama told the UQ audience.“ Worldwide, this past summer was the hottest on record. No nation is immune, and every nation has a responsibility to do its part.”
Historically, he said, neither Australia nor the US had been“ the most energy-efficient of nations”, and that it was time both took greater action to combat climate change.
“ We can get this done. And it is necessary for us to get it done. Because I have not had time to go to the Great Barrier Reef – and I want to come back, and I want my daughters to be able to come back, and I want them to be able to bring their daughters or sons to visit. And I want that there 50 years from now.”
In response, foreign minister Julie Bishop told media:“ Of course the Great Barrier Reef will be conserved for generations to come – and we do not believe that it is in danger.”
The trade minister, Andrew Robb, went a step further, telling Sky News he believed Obama had been“ misinformed” and that his comments had been“ unnecessary”.
“ I don’ t think others should be coming and lecturing us on climate change,” he said.“[ Obama’ s speech ] gave no sense of the first world, high-class efforts Australia is making successfully on that issue.”
The director of UQ’ s Global Change Institute professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, however, says it appears that it is Bishop who is misinformed regarding the potential threats hanging over the reef’ s future. Scientific research paints a bleak picture for the World Heritage listed area.
Hoegh-Guldberg said rising sea temperatures had been largely to blame for coral bleaching and that scientific research had made such effects easily predictable.
“[ Bishop ] didn’ t seem to be well briefed because her comments are at odds with scientific literature and the best journals – there are now probably hundreds of articles that support that concern,” he said.“ She is at odds with the documents produced using the best science advice at the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the Australian Institute of Marine Sciences and the Australian Academy of Science, so that was quite an eyebrow raiser when the foreign minister said what she did.”
Asked if he thought Obama was wrong to highlight the reef’ s predicament, Hoegh- Guldberg said:“ Given it was an audience of the next generation of people who have to think about these issues – and potentially find solutions – it’ s entirely appropriate that he would be taking about climate change and pointing out the vulnerability of Australia in terms of assets such as the Great Barrier Reef”.
Hoegh-Guldberg explained that rising sea temperatures and the acidification of the water were making it difficult for the reef to recover, as it had previously, from naturally occurring destructive events.
“ I have seen [ Bishop ] previously recognise the importance of climate change, so I can only feel that this is a case of being too busy and moving too quickly,” he said of the minister’ s response to Obama’ s address.
“ But we are talking about an important piece of the puzzle that needs to be corrected and that’ s why many scientists, including myself, who have studied this issue on the Great Barrier Reef for decades have jumped in to try to set the record straight.” ■
14