• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Australia to dump dredged sand in Great Barrier Reef Park

N

Napoleon

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
29,100
Reaction score
10,189
Location
Columbus, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The Australian federal government has approved a plan to dump 3 million cubic meters of dredge spoil in the Great Barrier Reef Park. The dredged material will come from the proposed expansion of the coal port at Abbot Point, south of Townsville on the Queensland coast.

Final approval came from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, and is subject to "strict conditions." The proposal, while controversial and opposed by environmental groups including Greenpeace, had already been approved by Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt last month.

Tony Abbott's government has come under fire for a raft of environmental decisions lately, including an election pledge to rescind expansion of Tasmania's World Heritage-listed forest reserve which has united environmental campaigners and the forestry industry, who see the plan as unworkable and damaging in the long term.
Click to expand...


What a terrible thing to do. :doh
 
Abbot seems hell bent on destroying Australia.
 
From the article: "It's important to note the seafloor of the approved disposal area consists of sand, silt and clay and does not contain coral reefs or seagrass beds."
 
Texmex said:
From the article: "It's important to note the seafloor of the approved disposal area consists of sand, silt and clay and does not contain coral reefs or seagrass beds."
Click to expand...

Because currents don't exist.
 
Texmex said:
Just quoting the article. I guess they don't know about currents either?
Click to expand...

Apparently not, or they wouldn't be making out like this will not pose a grave threat to the Great Barrier Reef.
 
Napoleon said:
Because currents don't exist.
Click to expand...

:lamo No, I don't think they can rely on the sand they are dredging to move instead moving the direction they want it to. Or are you saying there is no current anywhere EXCEPT where they are putting THAT sand?:roll:
 
Napoleon said:
Apparently not, or they wouldn't be making out like this will not pose a grave threat to the Great Barrier Reef.
Click to expand...


What grave threat would that be? They're not putting it on the reef. They are putting it in the ocean that it came out of. This is a nothing-story.
 
joko104 said:
What grave threat would that be? They're not putting it on the reef.
Click to expand...

You're joking right? You do realize that sand doesn't just sit on the ocean floor, don't you? It is churned about and carried all over the place by strong currents, waves, animals, and even boats.They may not be putting it directly on the reef, but the East Australian Current will ensure it gets there.

joko104 said:
They are putting it in the ocean that it came out of. This is a nothing-story.
Click to expand...

Erhm, this sand didn't come from the ocean; it is dredge spoil filled with toxic chemicals originating from inland.
 
Napoleon said:
Erhm, this sand didn't come from the ocean; it is dredge spoil filled with toxic chemicals originating from inland.
Click to expand...

Huh? I'm pretty sure it's just sand. It'd be a bit hard to dredge a harbour inland. Anyway, I can't see three kilometers of sand doing much harm to a reef that stretches for almost three thousand kilometers.
 
spud_meister said:
Huh? I'm pretty sure it's just sand. It'd be a bit hard to dredge a harbour inland. Anyway, I can't see three kilometers of sand doing much harm to a reef that stretches for almost three thousand kilometers.
Click to expand...

People underestimate how fragile reef ecosystems really are. 3 million cubic meters of toxic sand and debris can be catastrophic. Even simple plumes of sand can wipe out an entire reef which is why they are monitored by satellite.
 
Napoleon said:
People underestimate how fragile reef ecosystems really are. 3 million cubic meters of toxic sand and debris can be catastrophic. Even simple plumes of sand can wipe out an entire reef which is why they are monitored by satellite.
Click to expand...

What toxins are in this sand then?
 
spud_meister said:
Greenpeace opposes torturing puppies. Why do you hate puppies?
Click to expand...

You have Green Peace confused with PETA.

PETA hates the U.S. Marine Corps.

As for Green Peace, let the Frogs deal with Green Peace. They know how to deal with these old burned out hippies.

Frogs being the French.
 
spud_meister said:
What toxins are in this sand then?
Click to expand...

Dredge spoils typically contain polychlorinated biphenyls, oil, lead, mercury, etc. Even your average sand grains, while fairly innocuous to other animal life, still pose considerable danger to the corals when dumped in large quantities. This has a tendency to form large plumes of silt which come to rest on the corals and kill them by blocking sunlight.
 
spud_meister said:
Huh? I'm pretty sure it's just sand. It'd be a bit hard to dredge a harbour inland. Anyway, I can't see three kilometers of sand doing much harm to a reef that stretches for almost three thousand kilometers.
Click to expand...

yeah, people seem to be opposing and supporting this strictly based on ideology here. Why not read the science on it then decide?
 
Napoleon said:
Dredge spoils typically contain polychlorinated biphenyls, oil, lead, mercury, etc. Even your average sand grains, while fairly innocuous to other animal life, still pose considerable danger to the corals when dumped in large quantities. This has a tendency to form large plumes of silt which come to rest on the corals and kill them by blocking sunlight.
Click to expand...

Poor coral, how sad. :cry:
 
Texmex said:
Poor coral, how sad. :cry:
Click to expand...

what logic could one use to promote the destruction of a unique natural environment that delivers millions of dollars in tourist revenues?
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
what logic could one use to promote the destruction of a unique natural environment that delivers millions of dollars in tourist revenues?
Click to expand...

Well, I don't live in Australia, in fact I will never get the pleasure to see their wonderful continent. Therefore, I will leave it up to the Australian government to decide what is best for them.

I don't buy into this ecological destruction so many see at every turn. Just like those here in the States who bitch and moan about drilling in Alaska, I believe the potential damage is overblown.

The bottom line is that it is up to Australia to do as they wish with their own land. If they decided to destroy the entire reef, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
 
Texmex said:
Well, I don't live in Australia, in fact I will never get the pleasure to see their wonderful continent. Therefore, I will leave it up to the Australian government to decide what is best for them.
Click to expand...

yes, because as a conservative, I am sure you always assume governments know best ...

I don't buy into this ecological destruction so many see at every turn.
Click to expand...

actually you didn't question it, you dismissed the potential concerns as a non-issue

Just like those here in the States who bitch and moan about drilling in Alaska, I believe the potential damage is overblown.
Click to expand...

questioning=/=dismissing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom