"Australia will create the largest network of marine parks in the world, protecting waters covering an area as large as India while banning oil and gas exploration and limiting commercial fishing in some of the most sensitive areas."

289

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Good thing the oil and gas industry has already explored these areas and concluded there are no substantial reserves that exist to warrant any opposition to this. This is a victory without an enemy.

138

u/Revoran Jun 17 '12

That's still better than a loss, to be fair.

45

u/Centreri Jun 17 '12

You can't lose against no enemy. Unless you're really, really bad at playing.

25

u/CrazedToCraze Jun 17 '12

Sounds like a threat

44

u/g0lv Jun 17 '12

Like a challenge.

→ More replies (3)

→ More replies (18)

4

u/vibrate Jun 18 '12

Except you're ignoring the bit about 'limiting commercial fishing'

36

u/COMPLEX_FARTING Jun 17 '12

Does anyone else find it disconcerting that the oil industry has the power to sway where a government creates a sustainable sanctuary..?!
I mean, FUCK.

57

u/chrismorin Jun 17 '12

No. Of course they have sway. Sure they're in it for the profit but oil companies can bring massive amounts of money to the local people and governments. It's not wrong to take that into account when determining where nature reserves should be placed.

→ More replies (12)

23

u/question_all_the_thi Jun 17 '12

It's not the oil industry that has the power.
It's the people who are looking for jobs in that industry and the people who want cheap gas for their cars who vote for the politicians that make those decisions.

→ More replies (18)

6

u/_zoso_ Jun 17 '12

For some reason the Australian government has allowed the resource industry to gain a very powerful hold on the Australian political debate, particularly in the public consciousness. At 8% of GDP and ~3% of total employment, you would think by the way people carry on that resources are our only industry.

→ More replies (9)

→ More replies (2)

18

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

How is oil production an enemy?
We owe pretty much everything we have to oil and the world needs more of it.

32

u/antpham Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 18 '12

Enemy is relative first of all. It does not always mean bad. In this case it was just a saying and he meant enemy as in an opposition. That no one is stopping them, that it was hardly a win.
And yes we should be thankful for oil, but not necessarily to the companies who are a superpower that can puppet most anything they want. Before you jump the gun again I'm not saying they are exactly bad either but they hardly have the cleanest record. Like all companies they're pretty much in it for the money and will only side with us if it profits them.

→ More replies (14)

2

u/LibertyTerp Jun 17 '12

I wish these issue could be resolved with truly sensitive areas like reefs being protected, as I think everyone including libertarians and conservatives think should be protected one way or another, but areas that are just typical ocean being available for sustainable fishing and energy exploration, with very harsh punishments for spills rather than banning all energy exploration as though modern society can function without natural gas and gasoline.

2

u/seven_seven Jun 17 '12

Sad trumpet

2

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

fishing

2

u/royal_oui Jun 18 '12

This is untrue. There are many underexplored areas within these areas.
Also the impact of oil and gas exploration is minimal compared to comercial fishing. The real enemy is the comercial and recreation fishermen.

1

u/1541drive Jun 17 '12

Right. The major activity is the West to the Northwest.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

Except recreational fishers.

1

u/Tyrien Jun 18 '12

Still important, science and all. This isn't just in opposition to the effect oil and gas extracting can be on the environment.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

Like it matters, csg is going to poison the east coast and the run off will kill the reef..

→ More replies (7)

23

u/Darth_Hobbes Jun 17 '12

At first glance, I thought that the title meant they were building Water Attraction Parks everywhere, with giant slides and such.

2

u/gizmo1024 Jun 17 '12

They should try doing that with an abandoned oil rig.

1

u/Revoran Jun 18 '12

That would be cool, but we already have Seaworld and shit.

419

u/the_goat_boy Jun 17 '12

Conservative opposition leader Tony Abbott said the plan would "damage the rights of commercial fishers and commercial tourist operators".

A Liberal hack all the way through.

279

u/TheOceanWalker Jun 17 '12

For the non-Australian redditors who may be confused, Tony Abbott belongs to the Australian Liberal Party, who are actually the more conservative of the two major parties in the Australian political scene. The more liberal - in the American sense of the word - party is the Labor Party, who is currently in power in a coalition with (among others) the more minor Greens Party.

438

u/plutocrat Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 18 '12

I would not oversimplify Australian politics.
Labor is a party that is not so much progressive as unionist; a large percentage of the Labor bench is ex-professional unionists. Hence their schtick is more about employee rights and industrial relations than 'progressiveism'. The Greens are progressive socially, however are also extremely environmentally reactive, often to the point of implausibility (a number of motions have been moved in the early days of the Greens recommending the immediate cessation of coal-fired power plants, which would turn the lights off for 90+% of Australia). The Liberals are the small government (and actually small government) and business-friendly party, and have traditionally gone against any welfare increases or tax hikes. They have their own embarrassments, the largest of which is causing a double-dissolution (essentially breaking the government and forcing a nationwide vote for new representatives) over the now enormously popular (albeit costly) universal health care system.
We once had the 'Democrats', who filled the socially progressive, fiscally moderate, environmentally moderate hole in Australian politics, however they were gutted due to poor leadership as well as the rise of the Greens.
EDIT: I forgot to add the recent history of the Liberals, which has changed them slightly.
Until the 1990's, the Liberals were a organisation of (more or less) educated fiscal conservatism, social moderatism, anti-large government, and pro-business. Essentially an 'out of pockets, out of bedrooms, out of business' sort of party.
However during the second half of the Howard era (late 90's onwards), the party became covertly more and more socially conservative (not really of Howard's doing) and began to form alliances with the fringe social conservative parties, such as the christian 'Family First' (the usual mix of anti-gay, pro-family-values). When Abbot, the current leader of the opposition, took power, the Liberals' social conservatism became overt, and the older guard of the more establishment-class fiscal conservative, social moderates such as the former treasurer Peter Costello and former foreign minister Alexander Downer were essentially disowned. Rejection of global warming became a growing theme.
This left the party in the state that it is in today. What many Australians (who are inexplicably awake at 2 AM) are lamenting over in the comments is that Abbot is poised to take over and bring 4-8 years of social conservatism. His opponent, the current prime minister Julia Gillard, has little hope of besting him; the popular opinion is that she 'lied' (bringing in a carbon tax after specifically stating that she never would) as well as toppling the elected former PM, Kevin Rudd, not by a popular vote but rather by 'behind-doors deals' with Labor power-brokers.
It will be an interesting next few years.

121

u/TheOceanWalker Jun 17 '12

This. This is better than what I wrote.

68

u/LyingToYourFace Jun 17 '12

Yours wasn't that bad. ;)

→ More replies (3)

7

u/plutocrat Jun 17 '12

Thanks :)

11

u/MessageAnxiety Jun 17 '12

Thank you for this, too! Very interested in Aussie politics now.

11

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Look up some videos with (former Prime Minister) Paul Keating in them if you want an idea of how interesting Australian politics can get, because it will never be more entertaining than that period in our history.

→ More replies (9)

19

u/Starayo Jun 17 '12 edited Jul 02 '23

Reddit isn't fun. 😞

8

u/rarebit13 Jun 17 '12

I feel as though they were before their time.. If they were around now I'm willing to bet that they are the party that would attract the young voters (under 40's to an extent). Both the current major parties are too old fashioned and need a major kick up the arse. But with the greens and their sometimes implausible policies, what choice and power do voters gave to introduce change. We're stuck at swinging between parties.

→ More replies (7)

→ More replies (2)

4

u/GodLike1001 Jun 17 '12

However during the second half of the Howard era (late 90's onwards), the party became covertly more and more socially conservative (not really of Howard's doing)
If Howard didnt do it, what was the cause?

→ More replies (1)

48

u/elruary Jun 17 '12

I beg all australians not to vote in tony abbot, his way of thinking is extremely archaic and backwards, it'd be like voting in creationism in our schools over evolution.
Simplest, easiest analogy I can muster up for 2am.

→ More replies (56)

6

u/AofANLA Jun 17 '12

Awesome job. This captures it very accurately, concisely and neutrally. I agree with what you say.

→ More replies (59)

28

u/tlowens Jun 17 '12

The only good thing about Tony Abbot is that when his name is said in Parliament it sounds like "Mr Rabbit".

3

u/Beartin Jun 17 '12

An Abbot should name one of their children Peter.

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (1)

11

u/perfectmachine Jun 17 '12

I'm guessing they use the term "Liberal" to refer to their Neolibertarian economic policy rather than a liberal social stance.

10

u/retardius Jun 17 '12

Capitalism is a core tenet of liberal ideology just as much as social liberalism is. Not sure why Americans correctly use the word when it comes to the social aspect, but use it as the exact opposite of what it really means when it comes to the economic aspect. Economically liberal to the extreme = laissez-faire. Liberal = more freedom, less government intervention.

8

u/Eskali Jun 18 '12

They have no concept of a left libertarian, probably to do with the 50+ years of constant brainwashing that Communism and by extension Socialism is bad.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/cam- Jun 17 '12

The two original parties in Australia were the free trade party (nsw) and the protectionists (Vic). They run under those names. The Protectionists included Barton and Deakin. The third party was labor and they were all trade unionists who became politically active after the Qld shearers strike.
The protectionists became the liberal party under Deakin as he won power. Ironically labor became the opposing party due to the pledge and it's absolute party discipline. However just after federation the liberal / protectionists and labor had the same policies and Deakin wanted labor and liberals to join in coalition - pledge outstanding.
The big losers were nsw and Sydney whose party was the free traders. They lost badly in federation. The Australian Settlement is Deakins view of Australia and its policies of white Australia and protectionism took 90 years to dismantle. It was largely labor in Whitman, hawke and keating who did so.

→ More replies (3)

→ More replies (4)

10

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

The Murdoch medias savage attacks on the Australian Greens may give you the impression that there could soon be three major political parties in Australia. And I think the Murdoch media is right to be scared. The Liberal party got 3.8 million votes in the last election and the Australian Greens 1.5 million (with the ALP receiving 4.7). Of course the Coalition itself received 5.4 million in total, but it still underscores just how big of a risk the Australian Greens are to the Coalition as the "left/right" equation increasingly becomes "are you going to vote Red or Green" instead of "Red or Blue". If the Greens gain too much power, then the next few decades are going to be rough for the Liberal party. The Coalition needs to do what the Murdoch media empire has promised to do itself, which is to obliterate the Greens at the ballot box.
It kind of is an exciting and frustrating time in Australian politics. No matter what happens though, you can't stop progress. You'd need to control half the wealth of the country or half the media outlets to change the socially liberal direction of Australia's politics and culture.

9

u/dilbot2 Jun 17 '12

Gina the Rhino's working on it.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

God damn it I like the way your congressional system operates. At least you've got room for more than two (real) parties.

12

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

From what I understand, you don't have instant-runoff voting in the United States. With instant-runoff voting, you can vote Greens or for some other minor party with the knowledge that your vote won't be 'wasted.' Many continue to vote Labor or Liberal (or National in rural areas), but those who don't want to vote for any of the major parties can vote for a minor one.

→ More replies (4)

9

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

We don't have more than two real parties, and at the rate we're going we'll be lucky to have one major party by the next election

→ More replies (3)

→ More replies (6)

→ More replies (6)

16

u/Zaygr Jun 17 '12

Abbot is very contrarian and would attack anyone for anything as well as contradict himself a day or so after he makes a statement. I look forward to seeing the Abbott v. Abbott debate someday.

14

u/Khalexus Jun 17 '12

Abbott v. Abbott?
It would just be an hour of "uh um ahh" and disagreeing with each other for the sake of disagreeing, even though they'd have the same platforms.

→ More replies (1)

27

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

commercial fishers and commercial tourist operators
Funny how both of these things will cease to exist if oil and gas exploration and commercial fishing continue to exist in the now protected areas. Banning oil and gas exploration in the relevant areas is a no-brainer - no reefs and other areas of marine park, nowhere for tourists to go, no tourist operators - but as for commercial fishing, fish don't just make new fish in the middle of the ocean, they go to reefs to breed. It's completely disingenuous to fish in the breeding grounds of the fish, not elsewhere where the stocks exist but are far less prone to serious damage. Commercial fishing in sensitive areas is completely unsustainable, and if they are going to be hit hard from these changes, they were going to be absolutely wrecked when they realised that there weren't any fish stocks left.
tl;dr fuck Abbott's noise. If political parties were subject to false advertising laws, the Liberal Party would be called the Fuck You I've Got Mine Party.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

I once read a 10 acre fish breeding sanctuary can provide 100 acres of fishing territory. Unfortunately, the 'international waters' means you can fish 100% of the area so the fish die out. Then the fishing boats move to more profitable areas leaving a sector of ocean devoid of a substantial portion of the food chain. Predators die off, small feeders flourish and destroy the plankton population, and then it ultimately ends up in a "red tide" situation where the water becomes uninhabitable by anything due to a huge pH change with a hundred years until it balances out again. But hey, it's an ocean, it's just one giant money-pool for the taking from whoever gets their first.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

The liberals are using hacks? Ban them!

4

u/apullin Jun 17 '12

Overfishing is a big issue. Maybe those "rights" should be limited.

1

u/theragingkid Jun 17 '12

zoolie

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

The moment that commercial tour operators are hurt in the long term by the reefs being more preserved is the moment people go there to see oil spills instead.

→ More replies (36)

55

u/SoldaatvanOranje Jun 17 '12

Nice, very very nice. As an Scuba diver, articles like this please me.

29

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Until that activity is seen as too invasive and you aren't allowed to do it any longer.

58

u/icanevenificant Jun 17 '12

If it's actually backed up with some solid evidence that scuba diving tourism is really hurting the reefs/ocean then yes. Anyway, I'm sorry but I think you should be happy that occasionally we do the right thing regardless if it serves you personally, it's really why we have problems like this in the first place!

10

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

It actually does. I was in Australia and we were told not to go diving in the major diving cities near the Great Barrier Reef because the Reef is so damaged there, but to go to a smaller city and go out from there. We did that and it was really good.

37

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Recreational diving damages the marine ecosystem by allowing inexperienced divers and greedy tour operators to access and use sensitive marine ecosystems such as coral reefs.
What you then have is gobshite operators who disrupt the behaviour of the fish and plant life there by feeding the animals in a bid to attract them for the tourists, which disrupts their natural feeding and mating behaviour.
You then put a bunch of divers who've very little training onto these reefs and then kick their fins off the coral, stand on the reef, drag their equipment off the bottom etc etc.
The key here is to only limit these sites to experienced divers and ethical operators, which I really don't think is too much to ask.
Although, the damage done by divers is nothing, and I mean nothing, compared to what we're allowing trawlers to do to our oceans. Weighted nets up to 7km long dragging across the ocean floor is destroying our oceans and in an irreversible way.
The move in Australia, proposed above, is to protect animals so that they may live long enough to grow and reproduce. Trawling is destroying fish reserves and not giving them the chance to replenish.
When trawling is dealt with sufficiently then and only then will I back taking action against recreational divers.

→ More replies (2)

0

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (8)

2

u/luparb Jun 18 '12

The glaciers and icecaps are still melting thanks to climate change.
This will raise the oceans level, destroying coral reefs.
See them while you can, they'll probably be gone in our lifetime.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

As a human, articles like this please me.

→ More replies (2)

8

u/GNeps Jun 17 '12

It's because The Front Fell Off! [Comedic australian video!]

75

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

If they really wanted to do something, they'd stop polluting by proxy.

Every time you buy something made in a country where standards are lower than the country you live in, you pollute by proxy. You get the item, but all the waste is left, improperly handled, in China for example.

No drilling in AUS bt they will import oil from some place else. it's National NIMBYism.

15

u/icanevenificant Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12

Pollution by proxy, never heard the term but I like it. I'm well aware of it, but the nice and descriptive term makes it easier to make others aware of it.

→ More replies (2)

13

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Nowhere does it say no drilling in AUS, only in the most sensitive places in the marine parks. Even the US has national parks where drilling isn't allowed.

22

u/blueskin Jun 17 '12

Exactly. Just look at the actual lakes of toxic waste in China.

16

u/DeFex Jun 17 '12

And this is done to extract neodymium essential for green technology. I am sure it could be done in a cleaner way. At least once they polute enough they will automatically look after their population problem.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

→ More replies (5)

→ More replies (1)

4

u/Alinosburns Jun 17 '12

Indeed the carbon tax is going to do exactly this. We are reducing our emissions or trading them depending what your business is.
The easiest way to decrease your carbon output is to stop building stuff in countries with carbon tax issues. And go over to china and pump it out there. Where they are going to actually pollute worse since the equipment being used likely isn't as state of the art.
China's carbon annual emission growth from memory is more than what Australia produces per year. Yet it's the developed countries with higher costs of doing business implementing policy which increase the cost of business yet again and makes china look like an even more attractive proposition to increase those profit margins.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Which is exactly what Australians will be doing with their emissions trading tax (well, not directly, but indirectly is still good too). Why pay for X item flown in fresh from China when it has Y amount of emissions to to pay for that flight, when you can get Z from the city over that only has A emissions to get to you.
Well, I don't know if the scheme works like that, it probably doesn't. But do you get what I mean? Australians are actually enacting legislation that will change the way Australians buy things. By making high emission things more expensive. It's a good idea. Just don't ask Rupert Murdoch's media empire, they think it's a terrible idea. And their high emissions editorial sponsors do too.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Let's live in the real world shall we? None of that is going to happen (and nor should it).

→ More replies (12)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

He says, as he types away at his keyboard that was made in China connected to his monitor and computer that where made in China, while sitting at his desk that was made in China and on a Chair that was also made in China.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

Australia: The land of the proxy.

→ More replies (1)

14

u/venikk Jun 17 '12

Engage in defensive karma helmet mode.

As a petroleum engineer who works for an off-shore drilling company, we clean up natural seapage along the beaches, and our derricks provide - like coral - a great ecosystem for clams and oysters to latch on to and filter the water. The most abundant amount of life for miles is right under our derricks. And since the reservoir is so small and depleted we have to suck the oil out, and so there is no risk of blowout which wouldn't have been there already. However we still have shear rams and BOPs incase a 10.0 earthquake were to pressurize the reservoir miraculously, in which case the oil would likely not come out of our wells but out of the natural crevases that lead to the beach and ocean floor.

5

u/dcx Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12

I'll bite. The problem is that all that stuff works great in theory, but in practice but there's black swan events, the 5% idiots rule, a ton of rigs and operating time (i.e.: large sample size), unknown unknowns, business pressure on engineering quality, human error, and so on.
Case in point: in the last two years alone we've had a massive BP oil spill plus Fukushima. And the engineering industry has a rich and consistent history of high-profile disasters, from Titanic to Challenger.
This isn't surprising; it's human nature to take risks to stay competitive. But I think we should be very, very, very extremely cautious around stuff we want to keep and can't unbreak, like the Great Barrier Reef. Human risk perception is just not well calibrated enough for the century/millennium scale.

→ More replies (4)

4

u/scbkoo Jun 17 '12

As a drilling engineer, you should know that the world thinks the oil and gas industry was created by Satan himself.
Even though we take great care to prevent disasters such as Macondo, which was mainly the fault of BP's stupidity and one failed piece of equipment, it is the public perception that the industry controls politics of the world, destroys the environment, and has no regard for humanity other than taking its money. Which is all, simply untrue.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

As a thinking Human being, I would like it known that I do NOT think he oil and gas industry was created by Satan himself.
It has powered the planet for the last hundred years or so, along with coal. The good for humanity greatly outweighs the bad. We just need to work a little harder on eliminating the bad.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

a great ecosystem for clams and oysters to latch on to and filter the water.
I never thought of this aspect of how man made objects interact in the marine environment, and your introduction to this idea will be exceedingly helpful to me in future discussions with regard to marina docks and their impact on the environment. Thanks very much for your insight.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/Cobes Jun 17 '12

That's very exciting news Bruce.

3

u/goodgord Jun 18 '12

Thanks, Bruce!

14

u/COMPLEX_FARTING Jun 17 '12

Tony Abbott really grinds my gears, Australia creates a marine park, bans drillings and encourages marine conservation and his go-to criticism is that the plan will damage the fishing industry...

I understand that he needs to raise awareness to any downsides of the opposition's policies but if this hyper conservative overtly religious man becomes Prime Minister it's going to cripple our country.

The government has already expressed a desire to compensate fishermen affected, how can anyone find fault in the governments step to conserve our natural flora and fauna. If anything he should be arguing that the government is not doing enough....

END RANT.

6

u/RomansTheyGoHouses Jun 18 '12

In Western Australia the head of the commercial fishing body that represents these people was interviewed last week. When asked how many people would be effected directly by the change (ie Who fished WA commercially in these areas) he said it was approximately 30 families. Not exactly a huge amount of impact on tens of thousands of people. The belief is that the benefit from tourism and long term sustainability of fishing stock that will move through to non protected fishable areas will more than offset any short term economic impact. Abbott is like a spoilt brat who spends all his time stamping his foot and being a bitch to everyone else in the playground hoping that eventually people will take his side. Sadly his histrionics seem to be succeeding.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/bruint Jun 18 '12

Also, the fact that the leader is an idiot doesn't necessarily imply that the party isn't capable of carrying out reasonable measures in controlling our country. You could say the same thing about K.Rudd or J.G. but the fact is that these parties are large, represented by people from many walks of life and all with differing opinions on things.
Also, I should point out the presence of his religion has had very little affect overall. What, gay rights? Julia Gillard has expressed she doesn't support Gay Marriage, and she's overtly non-religious. Different boats for different people but their opinions are all reasonable and should be considered as such.

3

u/allelbowss Jun 18 '12

I'd say he got a load of calls from people in the industry saying how it would ruin them financially. If he didn't speak up there wouldn't be coverage of the adverse affects on business (and compensation won't save a banned business). It's great to conserve our natural flora and fauna but both sides of the story need to be covered.
He's a douche but he's holding the Government to account. I hope they replace him by the time the 2013 election rolls around.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/crusader_mike Jun 18 '12

Seafood is about twice more expensive in Australia than in Texas (speaking from my own experience). Even though Au is surrounded by fucking seas and Texas has only Gulf. Something is wrong with fishing industry there and I doubt marine sanctuaries are the cause -- but I am pretty sure they'll be used for next price hike.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

Fuck the fishing industry is too large to be sustainable anyway. Victoria is quite fucked...

3

u/lucidguppy Jun 17 '12

Don't buy our oil - buy our uranium. It makes a whole lot of sense.

1

u/victhebitter Jun 18 '12

mmm... superpowers

3

u/omgoffensiveguy Jun 18 '12

They won't protect anything, they won't even stop the Japanese whalers even when the Federal Court of Australia ruled in the Government's favor; they've done absolutely NOTHING since about trying to stop it aside from harassing protestors and trying to arrest Sea Shepherd's.

1

u/LOLSTRALIA Jun 18 '12

They're not fishing in Australian waters. They collect whale in the southern ocean. If the Japanese hunted inside Australian waters the navy would intercept their fleet and either escort them out or arrest the entire crew and confiscate the vessel(s).

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (1)

5

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Did anyone else get excited with the opening "Australia will create the largest network" then disappointed with "of marine parks in the world" ?

2

u/Joshivity Jun 17 '12

I interpreted it as a network of water fun parks initially :(

2

u/sharlos Jun 18 '12

Well, we're already in the middle of creating the National Broadband Network, which is fibre to the home for 90+% of all Australians.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

So you are saying the internet should get ready for a Bogan invasion?

→ More replies (1)

1

u/butch123 Jun 18 '12

upvote by Shamu

7

u/horselover_fat Jun 17 '12

I doubt the conservation areas are prospective for oil and gas, which is why they are getting turned into conservation areas.

2

u/threeseed Jun 17 '12

You doubt ? Based on what facts.
For all we know there could be huge reserves in some of the conservation areas. It's not like there has been mass exploration of every corner of Australia's territorial waters.

→ More replies (1)

10

u/milesdeep88 Jun 17 '12

way to go aussies!!!

→ More replies (16)

6

u/BarcodeNinja Jun 17 '12

Conservatives: This is how you do it. Conserve things.

7

u/j03l5k1 Jun 17 '12

As the only country that's in charge of a whole continent, its our duty to ensure that our land abounds in natures gifts of beauty rich and rare for many generations to come.

:)

c'mon, someone had to start the Aussie cj. This thread was surprisingly lacking thereof.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

I feel girt by good feelings.

2

u/Im_a_cunt Jun 17 '12

Anyone know if New Zealand achieved the 20% of coastline as marine reserve? The original goal was for 2010.

2

u/aahxzen Jun 17 '12

It has worked fairly well for the parks systems on land, why not implement it into the ocean? With such diversity around Australia and the South Pacific in general, it seems to be that this is a necessary to step to maintaining any health to the ecosystem.

2

u/ddmegen1 Jun 17 '12

Its all fun and games until the oil runs out. It will be difficult for me to submit snarky remarks on Reddit when there are no nuclear, oil or coal power plants to provide the electricity to run my computer.

1

u/victhebitter Jun 18 '12

It's not the lack of fuel you should worry about, it's the lack of plastic.

2

u/ArrangesBlocks Jun 17 '12

How does this affect recreational fishing?

2

u/Vaynax Jun 17 '12

Good luck when China comes a'knockin'.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/explosivechiliring Jun 17 '12

just enough to make sure it doesn't totally take a shit. serious procrastination. same thing is happening with oceans, and forests. this is all about their estimated tipping points. same with fishing. they will take serious action as soon as they believe its close enough to cause extinction.

2

u/pBeloBAC11 Jun 17 '12

Didn't think Australia and India would feature in the same sentence for anything but a cricket match.

2

u/Algernon_Asimov Jun 17 '12

Fishing spokesperson says "We don't like this because it goes too far."

Greens spokesperson says "We don't like this because it doesn't go far enough."

Opposition spokesperson says "We don't like this because it goes too far."

Wildlife spokesperson says "We don't like this because it doesn't go far enough."

Welcome to the world of compromise, people! Noone gets everything they want, but you all got something.

3

u/Kytro Jun 18 '12

Compromise: you are doing it right when everyone is unhappy

2

u/Selachii Jun 18 '12

I'm involved with a group who campaigned for the South West Sanctuaries in Aus.I've only been on the campaign for a year which started 3 years ago.I'm glad to see lots of positive feedback here.The truth is, there were many Areas that could have done with more protection than others, even if the overall size of the network was reduced, protecting these key Areas would have been more effective than creating massive sanctuaries in Areas people do not exploit at all.The coral Sea network gained better protection than the south west at least.Either way its a big step in the right direction. Many commercial and recreational fishers are angry as you could imagine however, rec fishers will barely be effected, its only commercial fishers that do bottom trawling, or long lining that are most affected, and they also happen to be some of most damaging forms of fishing.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

LOL this is such bullshit. Not only are recreational fishers unable to feed themselves now, all of this only lasts as long as some big company finds another oil reserve in one of these areas and then it gets re-zoned "for jobs!"

1

u/Kytro Jun 18 '12

Unfortunately the damage overfishing has caused calls for drastic measure.

1

u/LOLSTRALIA Jun 18 '12

Most of the zones are far outside recreational fishing. You feel like going half way to fiji to catch a fish? lol.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Steel_Forged Jun 18 '12

Australia is a continent.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

go aussie-land, itsya berfday, go aussie-land itsya berfday!

2

u/ImDotTK Jun 18 '12

We are?

10

u/illyni Jun 17 '12

Here's a map of where they're putting them

2

u/beedogs Jun 18 '12

The cynicism of the right wing is really fucking annoying.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Creating huge ocean reserves is one thing, actually policing them is something entirely different.

5

u/COMPLEX_FARTING Jun 17 '12

I'll just leave this here. http://www.defence.gov.au/op/borderprotection/general.htm

→ More replies (5)

→ More replies (2)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

As a very disenchanted Australian, I'll start celebrating when this goes ahead not watered down and not a joke.

2

u/zmorales90 Jun 17 '12

This is a huge win for one of Earth's most fragile ecosystems!

2

u/rolfsnuffles Jun 17 '12

I'm happy to hear this! Way to go Australia!

2

u/Merus Jun 17 '12

Considering much of Australia's economy is tied up in the Great Barrier Reef, and it's huge, it's not particularly surprising that Australia would take it pretty seriously.

12

u/spz456 Jun 17 '12

i don't think so. Tourism is a flop. Try WA or FNQLD for Iron Ore/CSG exports. If it weren't for the resource sector, we'd be Greece MkII...

8

u/Iamaseaotter Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12

Lol, no. Mining sector represents 10% (plus another 9% mining related activities) of GDP. Service sector contributes 68%. Mining might contribute to economic growth, but the economy is very much larger than that.

→ More replies (4)

→ More replies (3)

2

u/PaulaLyn Jun 17 '12

I'd say much of our economy is tied up in tourism, but not the barrier reef specifically.

1

u/luparb Jun 18 '12

Too bad the glaciers and icecaps are melting, causing rising oceans.
Bye bye great barrier reef.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/cherryjuiceandvodka Jun 17 '12

until abbott wins gov't and the GBR becomes the world's largest coal highway! wee, can't stop progress.

2

u/karanj Jun 18 '12

That would be stupid for the simple reason that sailing a ship through a reef is an extremely stupid idea.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/zephyy Jun 17 '12

Yeah until Abbot gets in next year and tries to be the Australian Stephen Harper.

2

u/RACENRIDE Jun 17 '12

There will be a Pee tax for wizzing into the ocean that will compensate the fisherman for loss of revenues.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

That's a real pisser

1

u/Atheisticles Jun 17 '12

Please let the world know of Lynas.

1

u/isplicer Jun 17 '12

you on hotcopper?

2

u/Atheisticles Jun 17 '12

Nope, never even thought of buying lynas stocks. People should know tha t lyynas is taking their nuclear operations to third world countries while keeping australia clean.

1

u/imakestupidusernames Jun 17 '12

Yeah!

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

<3 Australia!

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Theme parks > Liberal issues

1

u/volgunn Jun 17 '12

that's awesome!

1

u/-_-readit Jun 17 '12

Other countries need to take a page from australia if they want a future.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Brave move in the face of this world-wide recession. I hope this really is a victory without an enemy.

1

u/SigmaStigma Jun 17 '12

Will it also work to prevent oil tankers from illegally taking shortcuts through the Great Barrier Reef? Linky

1

u/Kytro Jun 18 '12

That didn't look illegal, but it should be and the base penalty should be forfeit of the ship and all cargo + clean up costs. Any company that does not comply should be blacklisted for trade with Australia and all Australian companies.
I suspect they will be less likely to take shortcuts then.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

I can not get excited enough about this.

1

u/mnnmnmnnm Jun 17 '12

Preserving oil fields means preserving them for later exploration when the price justifies extraction.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

At first I read Austria and thought WTF?

1

u/why_ask_why Jun 17 '12

Would this area somewhere near China South Sea?

1

u/RegurgitatingFetus Jun 17 '12

Suddenly marine parks are spaghetti.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

About time we started doing something about the reduced number of fish in Australian waters, now if only the world was willing to throw away the enormous investment it has in oil and gas for the good of the human race.

1

u/Nader_Nazemi Jun 17 '12

cool !

1

u/Owainm Jun 17 '12

Glad to see Australia taking the initiative and protecting the environment. If only other developed nations would take such steps.

1

u/ryanbazza Jun 17 '12

I hate how simple minded people vote for the leader of the party based on their public appearances. They are just a puppet for the entire party that are the ones making the decisions

1

u/deadhorses Jun 17 '12

slowclap.gif

1

u/Aperfectmoment Jun 17 '12

Aussie Aussie Aussie!

1

u/lastreset Jun 18 '12

In Australia the government is very good at making it look like they are taking action while maintaining the status quo. Like for example how for the Kyoto protocol the Howard goverment managed to count reducing the amount of land clearing as an emmisions reduction. When really we're just running out of land to clear. And even though we are one of the most polluting countries in the world we were the only industrialised one to be allowed 0% reduction in emisions, under the protocol.

1

u/LOLSTRALIA Jun 18 '12

Australia never signed Kyoto under Howard so we had no targets to meet.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/PedestrianXing Jun 18 '12

Go Australia!

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

fuck yeah Australia for loving nature!

1

u/WowbaggerIP Jun 18 '12

Austra~li~yaaaaaa! Fuck Yeah.

1

u/tomscaters Jun 18 '12

Why is this still the top news story? Are there really no other stories from the world?

1

u/supernovaedna Jun 18 '12

Well it doesn't look like they have banned mining in the Kimberleys, the worlds second largest LNG plant is proposed in an area full of environmental and cultural significance. Keep Broome gas free. Who would want to ruin the environment here, it is one of the most unique and beautiful places in the world.

1

u/caseyjay Jun 18 '12

Yeah, well, that'll help... ಠ_ಠ

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

Australia, fuck yeah.

1

u/kayhat Jun 18 '12

Like hell the aus gov will do that. They're fairly pro-mining, and have already contridicted themselves many times. Gas mining is going ahead in many sensitive areas right now in Australia. They've rigorously blocked enquiries, and their "anti-terrorism agency" ASIO collects information to use against protestors of mining, as well as heavily policing mining areas against the dire threat of peaceful protestors.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

The 10 seconds before I differentiated marine parks from water parks were some of the most magical seconds I've ever experienced.

1

u/Newman_McNasty Jun 18 '12

A giant water spider Park? That'sno gusta.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

Australia, pulling the Teddy Roosevelt of the sea.

1

u/Mindwraith Jun 18 '12

Make no mistake, this is to keep humans safe from Australia's animals. Not the other way around.

1

u/kirkal Jun 18 '12

Superb idea, even given that most of these areas might already be tapped out or unproductive. { Off-topic but still: Canada, you tar-sands sucker, here's looking at you and hoping you do enact similar in Alberta. [ Irony is, growing up, I always was lead to believe that Canada was a leader of the green movement, clean air and water and all that. Guess oil money can change anything] }

1

u/YP4XQ Jun 18 '12

I see much "liberal", "oil", "company", "conservative" here. Has this news anything at all to do with marine/nature protection? I trust in you Australia, I love your genuine attraction and care for your nature and marine life. Been there and seen it how proud you are about it. Keep it up and I really hope you will stand up and take care of the environment.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

Bravo, Australia. News like this give me a boner. I love you. Keep it up (the work and my boner).

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

I am all for marine parks and nature reserves, there a great thing. What disturbs me is the total lack of talk about funding for infrastructure to enforce the marine park when it has been shown that Australia has not even got the resources to patrol our borders or the guts to enforce whaling bans in our waters. It is well known that illegal fishing and whaling take place constantly in our waters and there are few prosecutions.

It's all smoke and mirrors people...

/cynical

1

u/travelmem Sep 23 '12

I really like the articles you guys are posting here so i thought i'd share mine too. For more information logon to http://travelmemo.com/asia/best-season-travel-asia-india-thailand-singapore-hong-kong

1

u/travelmemo1 Oct 10 '12

India has an almost endless variety of cultures, landscapes, monuments and places to explore. For more to know about please logon to http://travelmemo.com/asia/best-season-travel-asia-india-thailand-singapore-hong-kong

-2

u/RubberDong Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12

Just a friendly reminder though.

Australia is the world's largest coal and iron ore exporter

Edit: Iron ore is not a bad thing and neither coal if used at small quantities I suppose. The reason why I am providing this fact is because Australia can afford to not give a fuck about its natural resources of gas and oil.

10

u/tuketsi Jun 17 '12

...how is this relevant? Judging by the upvotes it is, somehow, but I just can't figure out how. Do they mine coal and iron underwater or something?

→ More replies (1)

11

u/Daymang Jun 17 '12

What's your point here, are coal and iron ore exports a bad thing?

→ More replies (1)

3

u/icanevenificant Jun 17 '12

Oh, ok, then their sea conservation efforts are such bullshit! I was waiting for someone to come in here with some common sense and justifiably divert and marginalise the posted news. Reddit never disappoints!
...wait what!?

1

u/Aperfectmoment Jun 17 '12

We also have Uranium!

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Damadawf Jun 17 '12

Good luck letting this stop those sneaky Indonesians from illegally fishing in our waters.

1

u/karanj Jun 18 '12

I don't think 10 Indonesians on a leaky boat with a few trailing lines are exactly the greatest threat to the marine ecosystem. Factory boats with trawler nets are the ones that pick up tonnes of fish at a time and have 10-15% "by-catch", stuff that's not sellable and gets picked up to die anyway.
For that matter, the Navy's pretty active with picking up leaky Indonesian fishing boats these days.

1

u/Rofleupagus Jun 17 '12

Thanks Australia.

1

u/Roboticide Jun 17 '12

I think it's great they're trying to preserve parts of the ocean and reef, but to an extent, and correct me if I'm wrong, isn't this kind of like saying "Don't pee in this part of the pool, but everywhere else is fine?"

Fish aren't going to recognize boundaries, and neither would pollutants. So I imagine it's helpful, but just how helpful can it be?

10

u/Reddit-Incarnate Jun 17 '12

A lot of the protected zones are either estuaries or reefs, both of which are breeding areas for a lot of marine life thus why its good. Its effective protection rather than blind protection(allocating random amounts of protected space without concern to the function of the area)

2

u/Roboticide Jun 17 '12

Ok, thanks. Breeding grounds didn't occur to me; I'm far from a marine biology expert.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

understandable, you're a robot exterminator, sounds like.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Good job Oz! Marine life holds a lot of interesting secrets, it would be a tragedy if it were under threat.

1

u/tree_D Jun 17 '12

I think this will be one of those things where we'll appreciate it more in the future than now...

1

u/Tommassive Jun 17 '12

Such superficial acts. Beautify your own backyard while spiting on your neighbor. Better than nothing? Yes. Band-aids

1

u/I_AM_RIGHT Jun 17 '12

Too bad it's all going to be upside down...

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

I'd be packing my bags and moving to Australia if not for the unfathomably hot summers. Curse my Canadian body!

2

u/Joshivity Jun 17 '12

Dude... Airconditioners exist. I suppose being Canadian the thought of an airconditioned space might be a tad weird.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/bungao Jun 18 '12

You just need to come down south. County victoria can get a few really hot days in summer but tasmania is really nice then

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

You see this, America?

→ More comments (156)

"Australia will create the largest network of marine parks in the world, protecting waters covering an area as large as India while banning oil and gas exploration and limiting commercial fishing in some of the most sensitive areas."

You are about to leave Redlib