Barrier Reef doomed as up to 99% of coral at risk, report finds
smh.com.au
smh.com.au
Hopefully this report won’t come true either, but it is hard to believe anyone predicting what Australia will be like in 2100.
In any case, particularly on a forum like this, we should argue about what technological ideas we can use to radically transform this gloomy prediction of the future. Rather than just accepting it as fact.
It's a collective effort from the whole world we'll need to reverse the damage.
Australia is no longer my top country to dive - Indonesia and Philippines are far better.
During that time the run off from farming, mining and development has increased markedly. The destruction of forests and mangroves and see grasses had increased. There was a time in the 00's when the rate of forest clearance in Queensland was the highest of anywhere in the developed world.
Technological ideas will do sweet fuck all if the political will is not there. (Unless your technological idea is to change the political will). Not even if there is real money behind those ideas. Need i remind you the gov gave half a billion dollars to a few ex mining executives to 'protect the reef'. It seems previous little had been achieved so far.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/11/a-mocker...
On the other hand, while micro-scale interventions can affect pollution and acidification, global temperature rise may be an entirely different beast, and that's what the people in this article are worried about.
1. Your anecdotal experience is meaningless.
2. I’d rather have scientists confidently say “we’ll all die if we don’t change” than “eh maybe it’ll be alright, let’s wait and see” while business continues as usual.
Getting the population riled up about #realistic# scenarios is a good way to actually changing things.
If you're interested, we collected ~14k images from across the reef between Oct and Dec last year. You can have a look (and help us analyse them) here: greatreefcensus.org/analysis
"A few years ago, the one part I visited was stunning, so there isn't an issue at all."
But in fact half of the reef has died since then: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/since-20...
> we should argue about what technological ideas we can use to radically transform this gloomy prediction of the future
The two issues are rising water temperatures due to global heating; and outflows of nutrients and to a lesser extent, effluent, due to industrial agriculture, mostly animal agriculture.
For the first one, we need to give up fossil fuels which means cutting down our consumption; for the second, we need to cut down our consumption of resource-intensive, waste-intensive foods.
There isn't going to be some magical "technological idea" where we can continue on much longer with our two centuries of unchecked exponential growth in consumption, and exponential growth in pollution, and not devastate our biosphere.
People have been telling me for decades about such a solution and yet it never comes. Each new technology just spurs people on to new levels of obsessive consumption and waste.
EDIT: turns out they do: https://e360.yale.edu/features/as-oceans-warm-tropical-coral...
Also, coral reefs grow extremely slowly.
If the thermohaline cycle in the Atlantic continues slowing down, there will be significantly less water circulating. There's a risk that bigger & bigger parts of the ocean just sit, don't flow, and thus never get exposed to the air: that they truly deeply & forever run out of oxygen.
The dynamical processes of earth are being disrupted. We talk about extreme weather being the risk, but a lack of weather, a lack of variety, a forever hot, non-humidity bearing (higher temperatures carry less humidity) sit-and-stew earth, just sitting here, baking, is the hell we are headed to. The dynamical processes risk becoming static, stagnant situations. The flow of life & change & systems is being baked off the planet.
Up here where WE live, the possible extremes of weather are factors of chaotic energy, and small increases in global temperature will produce wider potential swings in weather behavior. So we are not at all going to see 'a lack of variety' and we're not seeing it now. We're seeing 'wait, WHAT' weather and it's only going to get worse.
The challenge is surviving those energies. Never mind colonizing Mars or Venus, the challenge we'll face is clinging on to THIS planet, and a hell of a lot of people will end up not able to survive what's coming. And it's subcultures like Hacker News we'll depend on, for people who'll come up with the 300-mph storm windows etc.
I own a house: I'm not thrilled at what's going on. I'm trying to work out what I've got to do in order to not be taken out by some kind of weather extreme beyond what we used to have when I was growing up.
Mistaking energy for dynamic is a bad mistake. Yes, we are headed towards higher energy. But whether there are any dynamics that will survive, as the extreme conditions rise, is very much the existential question.
Wipe the 10% of the species, just the rare ones, and you will have still a stunning "virgin" coral reef but is neither healthy nor sustainable long term. Wipe all the uncommon species of coral and Acropora will refill all empty space so technically there is plenty of coral still. Wipe all sharks and there will be a chain of unexpected consequences down on the food chain. The reef works as a whole entity.
Is about quantity but also about quality of the remaining corals.
A bird that was very common when I was a boy is dying now. Why doesn't it just move a few km northwards, to where the temperature is right for it? It doesn't because it needs craggy islands in a shallow sea and the right temperature range.
A lot of species can move, but that doesn't mean that there are many suitable new locations. What we have now has been optimised for the current geography and climate over a long, long time. Shifting all the locations 100km isn't likely to produce as many geography/climate matches.
https://www.science.org.au/supporting-science/science-policy...
"Even if the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement are achieved, coral reefs are likely to decline by 70–90% relative to their current abundance by midcentury."
"Although alarming, coral communities that survive will play a key role in the regeneration of reefs by mid-to-late century. Here, we argue for a coordinated, global coral reef conservation strategy that is centred on 50 large (500 km2) regions that are the least vulnerable to climate change and which are positioned to facilitate future coral reef regeneration."
They are not "doomed" they are "at risk".
And if 70-90% loss doesn't sound like "doom" to you, may I have 80% of your assets?
If it's at risk, I can still be motivated to do something to save it.
https://www.thegwpf.com/claims-of-dramatic-loss-of-great-bar...
They quote fired climate skeptic Peter Ridd (https://www.desmogblog.com/peter-ridd) who has been funded by numerous industrial groups and coincidentally made claims that their products are harmless.
This time he misreads AIMS data for which AIMS has openly criticized him before on (that's why he had to create his own chart and not use one of AIMS). AIMS of course, firmly and clearly states the opposite of his findings: https://www.aims.gov.au/docs/research/climate-change/declini... . Coincidentally the GPWF is fairly well known for intentionally deceptive graphics https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_P...
Anyway, then the article says the author of the claim they are criticizing, Terry Hughes of James Cook University "refused to make public the raw data". This is linguistic acrobatics. His research team had already made public the data so he personally couldn't make it public a second time because that's not how language works. Here's the data: https://datadryad.org/stash/dataset/doi:10.5061/dryad.ncjsxk...
So in summary they lied about the data not being public and cited someone who intentionally misrepresented data and has been censured for that multiple times, all in 243 words. That's some achievement!
as the saying goes an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.
If you want to learn more about coral bleaching there is a great documentary called Chasing Coral, available on Netflix and YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGGBGcjdjXA
Off to watch it now.
If we don't have it defined, I don't think we fully understand our relationship with the natural world and how to fix it.
Global warming is an issue for life, but because it affects humans and the economy is why we care. Animal will migrate, go extinct, or adapt, but ultimately the ecosystem will move on.
In simple terms my understanding is, high biodiversity. More diversity is correlated with resilience, adaptability, etc.
Our mere presence casts an anthropic shadow over observations of how likely disastrous environmental outcomes have been. For example, any extinction worse than the end Permian extinction would likely have prevented mammals from surviving, and humans then evolving. So just by our presence we can rule out the occurrence of such an event, even if (without us) it could perhaps have been likely.
Perhaps planets like Earth are just normally unstable, falling into states that destroy their biospheres, and Earth itself has been extremely lucky. There's no reason to think that luck will continue.
The temperature estimates in the article do not eclipse highs in fairly recent history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_periods_and_events_in_...
Nor does the rate of change exceed that of what the earth experienced as recently as 8k years before present.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene#/media/File:North-wes...
While temperatures have fluctuated over the millennia, the last time co2 was this high (400+ppm) was maybe 30 million years ago: https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/
Another thing to remember is the tendency for us to compress all of history in a very short period of time, so arguments that are about 'oh x species will evolve' are more on the timescale of 1000s-10000s of years at least. Thus what we lose today are likely to never be seen again by us or any of our ancestors who understand our way of life. If enough of these events happen they can compound and lead to ecological collapse which may permanently affect life on earth and earth's ability to sustain life.
It actually a bit similar to how a virus in an pandemic can become deadly to humans because it cause the immune system of the host to go into hyper drive. The virus itself can be rather minor, and the immune system reaction under normal circumstances would be pretty harmless, but an incorrect reaction results in death. Inflammation can be a great tool to combat a virus, but too much inflammation in the lungs can cause acute respiratory distress resulting in death.
Reefs see bleaching happen on an annual basis, and extended bleaching can cause a die-off (the algae produces additional food for the coral) but the concept that hot water -> dead coral is, perhaps, not a direct impact. There's a couple of books by prominent marine biologists on this topic, that annual bleaching happens both in warm water and cold water corals. I'll dig up the citations if there's enough interest.
That said, no comment on acidification, that is a different topic and I don't have any factoids on that
seriously two clicks.
Key points from your link:
> About 56 million years ago, a mysterious surge of carbon into the atmosphere warmed the planet and turned the oceans corrosive. In about 5,000 years, atmospheric carbon doubled to 1,800 parts per million (ppm), and average global temperatures rose by about 6 degrees Celsius.
> In the last hundred years, rising carbon dioxide from human activities has lowered ocean pH by 0.1 unit, an acidification rate at least 10 times faster than 56 million years ago, says Hönisch.
What I cannot figure out is why if OA and global temps are dependent on atmospheric CO2, why has there not been major die offs in recent history(particularly 8k years before present. It seems to be that OA is particularly hard to study.
Why don't we just completely trash the barrier reef and focus on saving the next reef that isn't completely trashed.
Came across this interesting idea of storing ship emissions as dry ice at the bottom of the ocean. [1]https://fathom.world/co2-spears-decarbonise-ccs/
In fact ocean acidification from dumping carbon dioxide in the air is already putting us at risk of losing most of our shellfish in the next few decades.
Do they
A) Think it's a complete lie/exaggeraiton, and the Barrier Reef will be fine?
B) Think it's happening but not because of human activity (a massive die off across thousands of kilometers is totally natural, dude)
C) Agree that it's caused by humans, but that it's too late to do anything about (probably true), but that also it's not worth taking action on the REST of our emissions even though it could help prevent extinctions and irreversible ecosystem changes in areas we haven't even discussed yet.
D) Agree that it's caused by humans, but trying to do anything will destroy the economy, and the livelyhood of people that depend on it, so it's not worth doing
E) Agree that it's caused by humans, and renewable energy is cheap enough now that the economy will be fine, but trying to do anything about it will cause a reduction in corporate profits for a couple of companies, so it's not worth doing.
As recently as 10 years ago it feels like most conservatives were in Category A
Looking at the statements of most right-wing politicians, it seems that we are approaching critical mass of entry into group D.
How do people live with themselves knowing the mental gymnastics they are doing to remain "right" and never admit their thinking was flawed in any way shape or form...
I cannot accept that it would be inside a well educated circle like hackernews. It should not be any more controversial than flat earth theory or moon landing conspiracies.
So, I think it's reasonable for me to try to understand, anthropologically speaking, the mindset of a modern climate change denialist. My uncharitable and editorialized descript of their perspectives is perfectly justifiable. These people are actively perpetuating information and policy decisions that will cause the deaths of millions in the next century, the displacement of 100s of millions of more, and a reduction in the quality of life of billions.
They are not worthy of my civility. Civility is what is leading to the the status quo where we as a society - both left and right - have just accepted that the great barrier reef will be dead within a decade, and our children's children will only read about coral reefs in textbooks.
- Your comment wasn't about climate change, but about your interpretations of people who don't care about it as much as you do. Talking about climate change is not unproductive.
- Your comment did not make a good faith attempt to shine light on the mindset of the people who oppose solutions to global warming. You set up 5 strawman arguments and then beat them down.
- Comments like these are not effective at changing the minds necessary to avoid an ecological disaster. The most likely impact of your comment is that you galvanised the viewpoint of a few climate change deniers and pushed people in the centre away from your point of view.
you should really just not read the comments here and seriously stop thinking these nerds care that much or would do anything if they did.
1) The climate, or really the whole earth, has some background rate of change, that itself changes over time.
2) On top of that, there is change, ranging from significant to insignificant depending on the area, caused by humans.
3) This will cause the earth to change at a rate (potentially much) faster than if humans were not here.
None of this, to me, represents a problem in itself. The earth before humans, or at any other point in our history was not some ideal utopia. Humans have inflicted colossal change upon the world since our first day -- we've decimated pests, built cities over forests and dams over rivers, created lakes and removed others, just to name just a few. The world we live in today is anything but "natural".
My primary point of disagreement with those who consider climate change a grave threat is the approach. Rather than setting "reduction targets" and "cutting back", we will, as humans have always done, build solutions to problems as we grow. Whether that's investing in improved desalination technology to provide large quantities of fresh water (due to a demand for water), electric vehicles to reduce localized emissions (due to a demand for clean air), or plant a trillion trees to store carbon (due to a demand for lower temperatures), the key is that for those to be workable options they must represent the growth of humanity, not the decline. There's also vast amount of land in Canada and Russia that at present is undesirable because it is too _cold_.
Humans have survived in horrendously hostile environments and have built upon that the wonderful and wholly unnatural modern lifestyle. Humans have never in history been THIS well resourced to survive despite environmental changes, and I have the utmost confidence we will do exactly that.
But it also sounds just Option A. "The threat is exaggerated".
For vast amount of land in Canada and Russia to become habitable, vast amounts of land that currently house HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people will become UN-inhabitable.
Either due to sea level rise, or from just heat.
I understand maybe on the scale of our civilization we will survive (Maybe), but not before the unnecessary deaths of millions, maybe billions.
Is that worth it to you? Or do you believe that I am being alarmist, and exaggerating the grave threat?
It's like how medieval scientists had to use "all scripture is literally true" as their starting point. The actual work is to make reality fit within their required doctrines.
Meanwhile in China they ferry water in plastic bottles everyday to people because tap water there is undrinkable.
> In contrast to the the Big Five [mass extinction events], today’s species losses are driven by a mix of direct and indirect human activities, such as the destruction and fragmentation of habitats, direct exploitation like fishing and hunting, chemical pollution, invasive species, and human-caused global warming.
> If we use the same approach to estimate today’s extinctions per million species-years, we come up with a rate that is between ten and 10,000 times higher than the background rate.
> Even considering a conservative background rate of two extinctions per million species-years, the number of species that have gone extinct in the last century would have otherwise taken between 800 and 10,000 years to disappear if they were merely succumbing to the expected extinctions that happen at random.
[...]
> It would likely take several millions of years of normal evolutionary diversification to “restore” the Earth’s species to what they were prior to human beings rapidly changing the planet.
-- https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-mass-extinction-and-ar...
I tried to find a source for the claim of "several million years of normal evolutionary diversification" to restore the previous level of biodiversity. After backtracking through a few layers of citations, we find this pair of studies:
> Lu, P. J., Yogo, M. & Marshall, C. R. Phanerozoic marine biodiversity dynamics in light of the incompleteness of the fossil record. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA103, 2736–2739 (2006)
> Alroy, J. Dynamics of origination and extinction in the marine fossil record. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA105, 11536–11542 (2008)
The more recent of the two studies concludes the following:
> The new [marine invertibrate fossil record] data show that two biotic mechanisms have hastened recoveries from mass extinctions and confined diversity to a relatively narrow range over the past 500 million years (Myr). First, a drop in diversity of any size correlates with low extinction rates immediately afterward, so much so that extinction would almost come to a halt if diversity dropped by 90%. Second, very high extinction rates are followed by equally high origination rates. The two relationships predict that the rebound from the current mass extinction will take at least 10 Myr, and perhaps 40 Myr if it rivals the Permo-Triassic catastrophe. Regardless, any large event will result in a dramatic ecological and taxonomic restructuring of the biosphere.
-- https://www.pnas.org/content/105/Supplement_1/11536.full
In the event where coral reefs were killed, and all the species they support became extinct, in 10 -- 40 million years we might expect to find that biodiversity had recovered again -- perhaps unlikely to see reefs again, but perhaps something rich and strange.
[+] : reduction of habitat doesn't necessarily imply species extinction, although it is going to put populations that depend upon those habitats under more stress -- stress that they may not be able to recover from
There are close to eight billion of us here. The planet absorbs twenty billion tonnes of CO2. That gives a quota of three tonnes for each of us, divided equally.
Three tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year, per person. Three tonnes.
I live in a Nordic country where the average emissions are over ten tonnes per a year. How is that not comparable to Nazi era Germany, where normal folk knew what was happening but did nothing to prevent it from happening?
Except maybe few thingies. Germans were gassing a group of people alienated and we're gassing our own children. Germans trying to act to stop the gassing would likely be killed, we're facing the consequence of upsetting someone.
Tell me how I (or anyone else) justify using over four times the sustainable amount of resources and pretend to be a goodie?
#3TA
Tech will progress simultaneously and help us in offsetting the accumulated burden, but what we really need is to relearn the moderation that was present daily just some decades ago.
You can take individual action. I did for a couple decades. It was, more or less, a waste of time and energy, but I felt smug for a while. The world needs more Elon Musks, not more smug Westerners. There are billions of people in the developing world who want their world to continue to develop, and right now that takes energy.
Only chance is psychology of moderation and realizing the statistics of the over consumption.
Oxfam told in their report that the top 1% contributed twice the amount of the lowest 50% over the course of last 25 years. And out of that consumption of the rich, most is vain.
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-ric...
https://www.businessinsider.in/science/environment/news/indi...
https://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/april/tigers-genetic-div...
1. Don’t eat meat.
2. Don’t get in airplanes.
3. Don’t drive a car.
4. Live in as small a house/apartment as you can.
5. Don’t have kids.
It turns out that when people ask, “But what can I do?” What they really mean is “What can I do that won’t really inconvenience me that much?”
One is that you're advocating for a hair-shirt, masochistic lifestyle stripped of all joy. I have no objection to you choosing a vow of poverty, and to pass on children, but don't try and sell it as inconvenience, what you're asking for is basically religious orders.
The second problem is, all you've done is reduced demand for those goods you've chosen not to consume. That makes them cheaper, so other people can afford more of them.
Congratulations, you've done... nothing! But you get to feel good (?) about it? Don't get me wrong, being a childless vegan with a bike and a tiny apartment can be a satisfying lifestyle, but doesn't it undermine the feeling of self-righteousness a little bit to know that all you've done is make it so one more suburban family with four kids can have tri-tip for dinner and fly to Cancun on holiday?
Climate change is unfortunate since it means getting many countries working together, and some may see a benefit in doing nothing.
As to what people can do? I'm not sure there is an answer. A technological solution would be great but isn't assured, voting is a problem in that you already need a lot of people thinking the same way, and leading a good lifestyle will assuage personal guilt but move the needle very little, so I think it's worthwhile but not a solution. I am not sure it will make a difference as you say when others will step in and consume what you left on the table.
My opinion is that nothing meaningful will happen until we see some obvious signs of distress and even then we'll be lucky if people scramble for a solution. We are starting to see problematic weather patterns, reef bleaching, and other evidence but since the problem is statistical in nature we always get people who say such events are not necessarily an indicator of a problem. Broader scientific literacy in the community to understand the fundamentals involved would take a generation and would have to be led from the top down meaning we get back to the same issue of bringing an entire country on board.
So I don't have an answer, but I don't think someone always needs an answer to point out something isn't working. Regulation would work within a country, but you need to get leadership on board and this is a global problem meaning one country isn't enough. The solution will have to align with selfish interests whether economic or actual survival. My hopes are on cheap green energy and maybe one of the cleaner variants of nuclear but that is more of a faith-based answer than anything. I hope it'll work out but don't know enough to be sure.
By all means do all those things: I go in that direction myself. But also vote, because there are damages that will not be remedied short of large-scale wielding of power, and voting has some chance of directing the large-scale power that can remedy the institutional bad actors.
Again just my thoughts. Didn’t mean to hit a nerve here.
Individual action is also important, but we will never solve the climate problem by ignoring what governments can/should do.
Where? Because I don’t know of a major party anywhere in the world that matches the first description.
Environmentalism, but only so long as it doesn't actually challenge the status quo of our society.
You have the Liberal Party of Canada, which brought in a carbon tax, great, but in order to justify to the public their expansion of oil sands export development. The notion that we would stop pumping oil out of the ground and burning it is unthinkable.
The even more progressive BC NDP also committed to exporting liquified natural gas to be burned in other countries, justifying it with promises of carbon tax increases.
Parties that were considering our climate crisis with due gravity would be doing everything they could to lower CO2 emissions, not taking one step forward, and one step back, and fiddling around the edges.
Seems like the best idea is to just enjoy the time we have left.
Please. What a joke.
Read the IPCC reports. They are projecting massive increases in the wealth and health of the whole world in all future emissions scenarios.
Some scenarios are just worse than others, but all are better than today.
The world has been improving for centuries. The idea that we need to "enjoy what time we have left" is absolutely insane. It's pseudo-science
Yes, human impacts on the environment cause problems. No, they aren't going to cause human extinction.
Read "Enlightenment Now" or "The Rational Optimist" for some perspective.
From any major airport in the world you can probably get to Brisbane for $1000 USD return. Then Brisbane to Cairns is around $100 AUD return. You could win back the cost of your flights at the Cairns Casino, the best (worst) attraction in town!
It’s far away from most people and it’s not cheap, but if you want to do it, spend the rest of this year saving up and do it when Australia opens its borders.
Heating your house and eating meat contribute far more to your personal carbon footprint than flying, unless you fly much more than usual.
Personally I don't care if I ever see the reef, the Amazon or any other ecosystem. I'm pretty much interested in sustainable ecosystems to ensure human welfare.
2018 estimates of the carbon budget remaining for a 50% chance of less than 1.5C warming: 200 Gt CO_2-e -- 800 Gt CO_2-e [1]. Lots of uncertainty, I will ignore tails on both sides. Assume current global emissions are around 35 Gt CO_2-e / year [2][3]. Since it is now 2021, not 2018, subtract about 105 Gt CO_2-e from the remaining budget, giving a range of around 95 -- 695 Gt CO_2-e remaining.
Crude estimate of years remaining until carbon budget for 50% chance of limiting warming to 1.5C is exhausted: 2 years -- 20 years, assuming steady 35 Gt CO_2-e / year emissions.
Let's make things easier and relax the target and aim to reduce emissions to 5% of current levels -- a massive drop of 95%, not the full 100%. This relaxed target does not try to achieve net zero emissions, but to merely get us into the ballpark of where that a zero net emissions goal could perhaps be reachable with enough additional effort.
Supposing we are unlucky and reality is consistent with the scenario where we have two years of carbon budget remaining. To stay within the relaxed budget we would need to consistently sustain 78% annual drop in emissions per year for two years.
Supposing we are lucky and reality is consistent with the scenario where there are twenty years of carbon budget remaining. To stay within the relaxed budget we would need to consistently sustain 14% annual drop in emissions per year for twenty years.
What might sustained 14% annual drops in emissions feel like? It seems like world annual emissions dropped 7% in 2020 vs 2019 [3]. In the trailing decade 2010-2019 we were seeing about 1% annual growth in emissions. So if we assume Covid is entirely responsible for that difference, that's a 8% emissions reduction -- perhaps transient that will bounce back -- from a one-off event. If we consistently had two different Covid-scale economic shocks every year for twenty years, each with a corresponding _permanent_ reductions in emissions, that might suffice to maintain the 14% _permanent_ annual drop in emissions necessary to reduce emissions to 5% of current levels by 2041.
To benchmark against reality and pick on my own country: Australia's federal government reckons it is on track to reduce emissions to 480 Mt CO_2-e by 2030, from 540 Mt CO_2-e in 2019 [4]. This corresponds to sustaining a 1.1% annual drop in emissions for eleven years.
[0] I don't think limiting warming to at most 1.5 degrees C is a goal that is intentionally reachable from within the current human system. It is worth doing some back of the envelope accounting exercise every now and again to get a feel for the remaining carbon budget & the scale of the challenge.
[1] https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-much-carbon-budget-...
[2] I am being optimistic and rounding down to 35 Gt from 36.4 Gt in 2019 to make the numbers easier. Let's ignore 2020's data as not representative of what humans do in a typical year, due to the pandemic shock, although hopefully some of the behaviour change will be sticky (WFH, etc).
[3] https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/global/images/carbonbudg...
[4] https://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/australias...