Posts: 14,083
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/news/loca...ting-coral
http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/news/loca...ched-reefs
Coral bleaching is caused by a combination of higher ocean temperatures (global warming) and lowered temperature range caused by oxybenzone (sunscreen).
Therefore, banning aquarium fishing should help.
Posts: 1,930
Threads: 71
Joined: Jun 2012
Depleting small coral environment ocean fish to be used as pet aquarium fish can't help much. It is a very complex interdependent ecosystem.
Sunscreen being found as a cause of coral bleaching does put to rest all the paranoid "precog" conclusions of pesticides and toxins in the runoff to the ocean. It explains why every beach that gets popular has all the coral die off.
Sure, there are problems but why sit and dwell on them? Some people don't have just weepy tears for coral dying, they do something about it. Moving coral reefs has proven to not only restore the coral but attract multiple other species.
http://www.greenprophet.com/2013/09/duba...-new-home/
"Aloha also means goodbye. Aloha!"
*Japanese tourist on bus through Pahoa, "Is this still America?*
Posts: 1,219
Threads: 52
Joined: Dec 2014
Refusing to address one aspect of a complicated problem because it doesn't solve ALL the aspects of the problem makes no sense at all. We have a better chance of controlling a a handful of fish collectors than controlling all the tourist who come to Hawaii. Ideally we do both.
Posts: 14,083
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
better chance of controlling a a handful of fish collectors than controlling all the tourist
Tourism being a major source of revenue, no restrictions will be implemented there.
Posts: 10,988
Threads: 749
Joined: Sep 2012
We have a better chance of controlling a a handful of fish collectors than controlling all the tourist who come to Hawaii. Ideally we do both.
Or maybe reformulate sunscreen so it doesn't have a detrimental effect on coral. Remember when laundry detergent contained phosphates which caused rampant algae growth in streams in rivers? Phosphates were removed from the product. I don't believe anyone advocated we stop washing clothes.
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
Posts: 14,083
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
Here's another one.
http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/news...mal-survey
DLNR provided an exemption for an environmental assessment ... plaintiffs say they want the court to determine whether the exemption was legal.
Rules and laws for everyone, and if that doesn't work there's always the option of a lawsuit, or just ignore the problem and hopes it goes away.
Eventually, we will all have that idyllic "country living", because nothing else will be allowed.
Posts: 403
Threads: 26
Joined: May 2012
My guess (hope?) is that once this gets more press attention, consumer practices will force sunscreen manufacturers to reformulate their products. There are already lots of safe-for-coral sunscreens out there. We were in Palau in January, and they were adamant about this issue, as coral is obviously key to their diving/snorkeling tourist industry. I don't think there was anywhere on the island where you could even purchase oxybenzone-based sunscreen. In 3-5 years, it might be the same in Hawaii.
Leilani Estates, 2011 to Present
Posts: 4,213
Threads: 96
Joined: Mar 2014
On the geothermal lawsuit, if their is no drilling and the study is considered non-invasive since they are just recording magnetic results, why would an environmental impact study need to be done? I would suppose more damage to the environment and "culture" would occur as a direct result of the actual study!
Posts: 14,083
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
The sunscreen/coral problem has been known for years, and alternative sunscreen formulae already exist which solve this problem. Any attempt to regulate or restrict will be met with an expensive legal battle which takes long enough to render the original problem moot.
Geothermal is similarly amusing: in addition to the tired old "did the State follow its own rules correctly" argument, we get the irony of continuing to burn more bunker fuel while not building the cleaner alternative that happens to be available (here, even, not on Oahu like everything else). Which one does more damage to the environment?
(For that matter, the legal fight itself consumes massive amounts of energy for air conditioned offices, luxury cars for the lawyers, huge amounts of paper... exacerbating the environmental damage by who knows how much.)
Posts: 785
Threads: 6
Joined: Apr 2012
quote:
Originally posted by leilanidude
On the geothermal lawsuit, if their is no drilling and the study is considered non-invasive since they are just recording magnetic results, why would an environmental impact study need to be done? I would suppose more damage to the environment and "culture" would occur as a direct result of the actual study!
Easy answer to that: if you make it sufficiently expensive to do even the basic studies to determine if a resource is present, then there will be no further resource development. Interesting irony, though, PPA doesn't want any more geothermal in Puna, but they don't want any exploration anywhere else either, so Puna will be the only place geothermal can be done. And PDF doesn't want it done anywhere - so we keep burning oil to keep the lights on.
