ENSTU 300: Critical Thinking & Communication in Environmental Studies

Conservation Policy for the Great Barrier Reef

Samantha Waldroup, Environmental Studies Program, California State

University, Monterey Bay

Scott Reef, 2016. Australian Institute of Marine Science.

Introduction

Imagine diving into the crystal blue water of the Coral Sea and

examining the colorful and abundant coral reef habitats that sit just below

the surface. Now, imagine visiting the same reef only to find it barren,

bleached, and dwindling away. The phenomenon of coral bleaching has

affected many reefs all over the world’s oceans, but has notably changed

the nature of one of the world’s greatest coral reefs: the Great Barrier Reef.

The instance of coral bleaching diminishes the symbiotic relationship

between the coral and the zooxanthellae algae that provides color and a

primary source of food (Hancock, n.d.). The lack of symbiosis between the

two prevents the Great Barrier Reef from remaining a flourishing ecosystem

for all kinds of species, and leaves the coral bleached and vulnerable.

1
Those who can act to protect and help regenerate the Great Barrier Reef

should do so immediately. There are many stakeholders that are involved

with the issue at hand, including fossil fuel companies, ecotourism groups,

the Australian government, and environmentalists.

A History of Bleaching Events

Shockingly, between just 2014 and 2017, around 75% of tropical coral

reefs worldwide underwent heat-stress intense enough to cause bleaching.

Of that 75%, 30% of coral reefs were killed by the bleaching events

(Hancock, n.d.). Once corals die, entire reefs rarely regenerate to their once

healthy state. The less healthy coral that remains, the more difficult

reproduction becomes. The species within coral reef ecosystems that

depend on healthy corals deteriorate following bleaching events. Despite

the fact that this issue has only recently been thoroughly explored, we

should all be concerned about the current and future consequences of

coral bleaching and work to revive the Great Barrier Reef to the best of our

ability.

Background on Bleaching

Coral can become bleached when an external stressor causes the

zooxanthellae algae to expel itself from the coral, thus terminating their

symbiotic relationship and turning the coral white or pale in color (Brown,

1997). Bleaching in the Coral Sea originates from rising sea surface

temperatures; climate change primarily causes this rise. The influences of

a changing climate, such as an increase in carbon dioxide levels, are to

blame for coral bleaching and a multitude of other broad oceanic

2
problems. One of these problems that follows coral bleaching is ocean

acidification, which occurs when a normally non-acidic ocean absorbs

carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This addition of excess carbon

dioxide causes a reaction with seawater, ultimately decreasing the overall

oceanic pH levels and the amount of carbonate ions in turn. A reduction in

carbonate is tied to corals experiencing difficulty in producing calcium

carbonate, which is one of their significant mineral building blocks (Hardt

& Safina, 2008).

When sea surface temperatures rise, the symbiotic relationship

between the coral in the Great Barrier Reef and the zooxanthellae algae

becomes disrupted. Sea surface temperatures have been consistently

rising; from 1850 to 2005, there has been a temperature increase of 0.04

degrees Celsius every decade (Bindoff et. al, 2007). Due to this disruption,

the algae expels itself from the coral’s tissue leaving the coral without its

main source of food, extremely pale in color, and susceptible to further

damage and disease (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

2021). When a coral reef becomes bleached, it does not die; the symbiotic

relationship between the coral and the zooxanthellae algae only becomes

obsolete for the time being (National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, 2021). The current scientific understanding of the

consequences relating to coral bleaching states that a resilient reef that

has maintained health for a long period of time prior to the bleaching

instance can allow for a speedy recovery, given the ocean temperature

quickly returns to normal.

3
Policy Context

There are a number of attempted policies that have been enacted by

various Australian entities in order to prevent coral bleaching and prolong

the health of the Great Barrier Reef. These policies, including the Reef 2050

Long-Term Sustainability Plan, the North-East Shipping Management Plan

and the Paris Climate Agreement, have been deemed both effective and

ineffective by experts and critics.

Australian Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment Policy

The Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan (RLTSP), enacted in 2015,

was designed as an outline to address the threats posed to the Great

Barrier Reef and other reefs off the Australian coast at the federal level.

The plan recognizes the main threats to coral reefs and the main causes of

coral bleaching, such as ocean acidification, climate change, and overall

environmental decline. The severity of the issue is communicated on page

22 of the document, stating that “future predictions indicate sea level rises

and temperature increases will continue, the pH of the ocean will gradually

decline and weather will be more severe” (Australian Department of

Agriculture, Water and the Environment, 2018). The proposed solutions that

follow the identification of the issue consist of repeated sampling of

seawater to further research acidification and carbon dioxide levels, and a

promise to reduce carbon emissions as a nation to a 5% lower rate than

those recorded in 2000 by the year 2020 (Delaney-Crowe et. al., 2019). Overall,

the plan was created to place emphasis on the issue, and assess

risk-management rather than attempt to solve the problem first and

4
foremost. Despite the proposed efforts and recognition of the issue by the

Australian government, many experts have criticized the plan as not being

realistic enough, and setting unreachable goals. The initial goal of

improving the health and renewing the biodiversity of the Great Barrier

Reef has since been replaced with simply maintaining the ecological

function of the reef. This ecological function refers to providing shelter and

food for different species, acting as a tourist attraction, and protecting the

coast from powerful waves. As all advisory bodies involved in the critique of

the RLTSP have expressed, the plan should focus more on addressing the

threat of climate change as the health of the reef has only since declined

(Slezak, 2017).

Australian Safety and Maritime Authority Policy

Shortly before the RLTSP was published, the North-East Shipping

Management Plan (NESMP) was enacted in 2014. This federal plan, with the

oversight of the Australian government, was aimed at improving conduct

of the shipping industry in relation to environmentally sensitive areas. The

RLTSP mentions the NESMP; as they were developed in a similar time frame,

both policies were designed to work together in accomplishing the same

goals in different contexts. The main focus of the NESMP relates to

encouraging ships that port near protected areas and vital reefs to utilize

safe and helpful technology and reduce damaging waste incidents

(Australian Maritime Safety Authority, 2014). The plan also recognizes that

the shipping industry accounts for a significant portion of Australia’s

national economy; with over 10% of the world’s maritime trade passing

5
through Australia by volume, it is projected to only ramp up in the future

(Hurley et. al., 2019). The technology suggested in the NESMP is called

‘Electronic Chart Display and Information Systems’ (ECIDS), which is an

in-depth routing system that alerts the operators of the ship when it is

approaching protected areas, such as vital coral reefs. The annual ‘ship

report card’ vetting system requires all ships to be outfitted with ECIDS,

and fines those who have not yet implemented it (Australian Maritime

Safety Authority, 2014). Additionally, the plan seeks to achieve greater

incident response capabilities in case of a cargo spill or complication that

could induce environmental damage. The pollution response fund, with a

financial capability of $50 million, was created as part of the plan in order

to support a rapid response from AMSA to major pollution accidents. This

fund was also designed to meet the costs of incidents that are not

recoverable from the ship owner to the insurer (Australian Maritime Safety

Authority, 2014). In cleaning up accidental waste incidents faster and being

much more financially prepared, the NESMP aspires to reduce the

long-term effects of environmental damage committed by the shipping

industry. A 2019 review conducted on the progress of the NESMP concluded

that the actions taken have progressed the RLTSP successfully in the area

of shipping concerns and ship waste management (Australian Maritime

Safety Authority, 2019).

International Policy

Coming into force in 2016, the Paris Climate Agreement helps to

collectively decrease global emissions with the help of participating

6
nations (United Nations Climate Change, n.d.). Australia is a member of the

agreement, and committed in 2015 to goals such as reducing emissions by

26-28% below 2005 levels by 2030, and have more recently aimed at

reaching net zero emissions by 2050 (Australian Department of Industry,

Science, Energy and Resources, 2021). Alongside these numerical goals,

Australia has also committed to administering aid projects for developing

countries, leading negotiations on land sector and transparency issues

within the Paris Agreement, and approving participation in previously

established climate agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol (Australian

Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, 2021). Although

these goals may seem to be overly confident, organizations within the

Australian government have since reported their success. In 2020, Australia

affirmed that their emissions reduction goal with a deadline of 2030 will be

achievable, and have even included new listed actions in the plan

(Australian Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, 2021).

More recently in 2021, the commitment of reaching net zero emissions by

the year 2050 has also been graded as entirely feasible by the Australian

government; in fact, an added target of 9 percentage points higher than

the previous goal has been approved (Australian Department of Industry,

Science, Energy and Resources, 2021). Despite the direct analysis from the

Australian government of on-track success, critics seem to have differing

opinions on if these goals are truly achievable based on current action or

lack thereof. According to Climate Action Tracker, a website that analyzes

national climate initiatives, the overall rating given to Australia is ‘highly

7
insufficient’ in meeting their targets described in the Paris Agreement (CAT,

2021). As for their 2030 goal of reducing emissions to levels below those of

2005, the CAT reports that Australia is currently on it’s way to reaching a

12-16% reduction in emissions comparable to those in 2005 instead of

26-28% (CAT, 2021). Additionally, the CAT points out that previously recorded

emissions levels may have been inaccurate, causing Australia to have an

easier time reaching these seemingly ambitious goals. Australia has

included land-use, land-change and forestry (LULUCF) emissions when

calculating emission levels from the past, which inflated previous levels

inaccurately and fluctuated regularly (CAT, 2021). Many, including

nonpartisan research organizations like CAT, claim that Australia’s future

targets are not entirely honest, and serve mostly to save face for the

nation. Many of these policies originate from differing stakeholders, all

hoping to achieve varying goals that affect the future of the Great Barrier

Reef.

Stakeholder Perspectives

There are a multitude of different stakeholders involved in the future

regeneration or destruction of the Great Barrier Reef, all with contrasting

interests and motivations.

Australian Government Perspective

The Australian government, largely focusing on the Prime Minister

and Parliament Members representing areas in Queensland, make

decisions that relate directly to the health of the Great Barrier Reef.

Although there are polarizing members in any government, economic

8
growth and conservation of the country’s natural sites are considered

agreeable values among many in Australia. Parliament members that must

be reelected to continue to make decisions for their respective districts

also value public support, and can be swayed by their constituency. The

values of the Australian government members as a whole mostly can

identify with the Utilitarian and Ecologistic-Scientific typologies, as they

look to grow the economic standing of Australia while preserving the

environment for future generations. The current Prime Minister Scott

Morrison has recognized the issue of the declining health of the Great

Barrier Reef, and has supported efforts by environmental organizations to

focus on reef health.

Ecotourism Perspective

Ecotourism is a combination of conservation efforts and tourism in

exotic areas with a demand to be explored. There are many ecotourism

companies located near the Great Barrier Reef, and some bring tourists

directly to the Great Barrier Reef. EcoTourism Australia, for example, aims

to respectfully maintain tourism sites while making an economic profit.

Through this form of tourism, awareness is also raised for environmental

issues such as the declining health of coral reefs. Ecotourism companies

certify businesses as eco-friendly, and have members on advisory boards

and other industry bodies. They also host conferences on how to promote

ecotourism, and enhance the ecotourism experience. As these groups

have an economic and ethical interest in the health of the Great Barrier

Reef, they relate most to the Ecologistic-Scientific typology. This typology

9
refers to those who value the structure, function, and relationships that

nature provides while appreciating it. EcoTourism Australia has stated that

their goals include inspiring “environmentally sustainable and culturally

responsible tourism”; in regards to the Great Barrier Reef specifically, they

have claimed to employ tour guides who are recognized by the Great

Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority for consistently protecting the reef

(EcoTourism Aus, n.d.).

Fossil Fuel Corporation Perspective

One of the largest contributing factors of coral bleaching is the

rapid rate by which climate change is progressing. When reviewing the

values of a multitude of stakeholders, there is one large and powerful

group that has a massive economic interest in ensuring that the world’s

population is reliant on the use of fossil fuels; this group is composed of

the main corporations that produce fossil fuels. The values of

corporations that produce fossil fuels include the continuation of

pursuing coal, oil, and gas projects for economic gain; these pursuits

relate most to the Utilitarian typology. This typology refers to valuing the

practical and material uses of nature, often in an exploitive sense. The

producers of fossil fuels , such as ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and Chevron all

share statements on being committed to sustainability and mitigating

emissions. Despite this, “a Carbon Tracker study in 2015 found that fossil

fuel companies risked wasting more than $2 trillion over the coming

decade by pursuing coal, oil and gas projects that could be worthless in

the face of international action on climate change and advances in

10
renewables – in turn posing substantial threats to investor returns” (Riley,

2017). Due to the financial incentive for these companies to continue to

produce and distribute fossil fuel products, they can be identified as one

of the main Utilitarian proponents of the impacts of climate change.

Table 1: Stakeholder Values

Stakeholder Group Representative Stakeholder Values What are the What does the
Examples concerns of the stakeholder
stakeholder? contribute?

Australian Prime Minister, Economic growth Maintaining public Committing to emission

Government Queensland support/political goals (not consistent
Conservation for goals/reelection with Paris agreement)
Members of tourism/resources
Parliament (MP’s) Saving face Making decisions that
Public support internationally affect Australia
nationally
Utilitarian, Growing economic
Ecologistic-Scientific standing of AUS Representing their
constituency

Australian Tourism EcoTourism Australia Maintaining eco Attracting tourists to Certifies businesses to
Organizations tourism sites Australia be sustainable
ecotourism
Respectful use of land Ensuring tourism is products/experiences
and nature culturally and
environmentally Members on advisory
Economic gain from conscious boards and other
tourism industry bodies
Certifying tourist
Ecologistic-Scientific attractions/businesse Hosts global Eco
s as ‘eco friendly’ Conference

Fossil Fuel ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Continuation of Keeping global A few companies
Corporations Chevron pursuing coal, oil, and population dependent contribute 70% of
gas projects on fossil fuels global emissions

Utilitarian Values

Environmentalists Coral Reef Alliance, Humanistic, Aesthetic, Encouraging public to Using donations to
Great Barrier Reef Moralistic Values care about coral reef jumpstart initiatives
Foundation health on clean water,
healthy fisheries, and
Acquiring donations encouraging policy
(CRA)

Use ‘independent
science’ to inform
public and educate
through ‘practical
action’ (GBR
Foundation)

Fund projects
protecting reef health

11
Introduction to Policy Recommendations

The Great Barrier Reef, located in the Coral Sea off the coast of

Australia, has faced immense harm due to coral bleaching mainly caused

by rising sea surface temperatures, pollution, and climate change. A

reduction in carbon emissions, reducing pollution in the Coral Sea, and

working towards a more sustainable future can all contribute to the most

regenerative success for the Great Barrier Reef.

Policy Options

Below is a recommendation table including three feasible policy

options that would aid in addressing the fight to save the Great Barrier

Reef from the point of no longer achieving regeneration. The criteria by

which these policies are evaluated include a reduction in carbon

emissions, a reduction in pollution caused primarily by the shipping

industry, and the ability to set the stage for a more sustainable future.

Criteria Redrafting Reallocate AUD Establish new

Australia’s Paris 52.9m for 2021-22 ports to replace
Agreement budget for gas those near the
Commitment infrastructure to GBR in the Coral
without the renewable Sea
inclusion of energy
LULUCF initiatives/electri
(Land-Use, c vehicles
Land-Change,
and Forestry)

Reduce ++ ++ +-
Emissions

Reduce Shipping -- -- ++
Pollution/Disrupt
ion

Encourages a ++ ++ +-
Sustainable

12
Future

Key: (Effective) ++, (Somewhat Effective) +-, (Ineffective) --

Policy Option 1: Redrafting Paris Agreement Commitment

The first policy option is to redraft Australia’s official commitment for

reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the Paris Climate Agreement.

Australia’s 2015 commitment to reducing national emissions by 26-28%

below levels recorded in 2005 by 2030 is said to be faulty, as the data

acquired to make this goal is being interpreted as inaccurate (CAT, 2021).

The inclusion of LULUCF’s, or Land-Use, Land-Change and Forestry

credits, hinder the accuracy of the data collected on national emissions.

LULUCF regulation allows for nations to lessen the goal amount of carbon

removed from the atmosphere set in commitments like the Paris Agreement

in exchange for better forestry management and a decline in deforestation

as forests act as carbon sinks (Matthews, 2019). Because of these

regulations, Australia’s data from previous years regarding carbon

emissions has been claimed to be inaccurate due to forest management

policies gaining emissions credits in the past (CAT, 2021). These prior

LULUCF credits allow Australia to set goals that appear ambitious for

reducing emissions when in reality, they do little to improve the climate

now and in the future. Rewriting Australia’s Paris Climate Agreement

emission goals without the inclusion of these credits would catalyze a

substantial and realistic reduction in national emissions. Although this

suggestion could be timely and would require Australia’s prime minister to

13
achieve a new submission into the global agreement with the consensus of

participating countries, it would truly reduce overall emissions, and

encourage a sustainable future. However, it would not address shipping

industry pollution that is also negatively affecting the Great Barrier Reef.

Policy Option 2: Reallocating Remainder of Gas Infrastructure Budget

For the 2021-2022 gas infrastructure budget, Australia pledged to

contribute $59.2m Australian dollars (CAT, 2021). This post-COVID-19

rehabilitation plan includes no support for renewable energy or electric

vehicles, and has only replaced the use of fossil fuels with more fossil fuels.

Despite large amounts of government funding recently promised to fund

cleaner technology, many initiatives required for this money to do just that

have failed in votes within the government (CAT, 2021). If the remainder of

the 2021-2022 gas infrastructure budget was reallocated to subsidizing

electric vehicles and supporting renewable energy constructs such as

solar, wind or clean hydrogen power, the nation would set the stage for a

reduction in reliance on the fossil fuel industry. This plan would primarily

reduce emissions, and help to encourage a sustainable future through the

establishment of using renewable energy instead of fossil fuels. Once this

plan is implemented, it would be unlikely that Australia would result back to

the primary use of fossil fuels in the future. This plan does not account for

a reduction in shipping industry pollution, but it is more easily achievable

than Policy Option 1, and requires sustainable changes in the energy and

gas sector that would hopefully continue to reduce emissions for the

longest period of time.

14
Policy Option 3: Establish Replacement Ports Away from GBR

The third policy option is to close the 10 major trading ports that are

located along the Great Barrier Reef coast in the Coral Sea (GBRMPA, n.d.).

Although the main contributing factor of reef degradation relates to rising

sea surface temperatures caused by rising carbon emissions, reducing

shipping pollution could aid in the regeneration of the reef and protect it

from further disruption. The North-East Shipping Management Plan

developed by Australian Safety and Maritime Authority in 2014 acted as a

sufficient start to reducing potential pollution and accidental cargo spills,

however having major ports located on the Coral Sea coastline shared with

the Great Barrier Reef opens the door for these problems to occur. By

implementing new ports in the Coral Sea that are not near the Great

Barrier Reef, accidental spills and direct pollution would no longer be an

issue, and the GBR would have a better likelihood of regenerating barring

disruption from harmful waste. Despite this plan addressing the concern

of shipping industry pollution, building new ports would be a costly feat,

and new shipping routes would need to be established. This plan also does

not account for any promised improvements in reducing carbon

emissions, unless new routes are shorter in distance and are operated

more efficiently than those near the Great Barrier Reef. The establishment

of new shipping ports encourages a sustainable future by reducing the

overall pollution that affects the GBR, but does not address the primary

cause of coral reef bleaching.

15
Recommendation

Upon reviewing the potential policy options provided based on

extensive research and feasibility, the solution that presents itself as most

successful in solving the issue is Policy Option 2. Although Option 1 would

ensure a realistic Paris Climate Agreement goal for Australia to achieve, it

does not ensure that the nation will make the necessary changes in order

to achieve those goals. Policy Option 3 is the only potential policy to

address shipping industry pollution, however it does very little to aid in

reducing Australia’s carbon emissions and only somewhat promotes a

sustainable future. Reallocating a national budget meant for the fossil fuel

industry with a pre-approved amount of funding to sustainable energy

sources and electric vehicles meets the most criteria and acts as a

meaningful shift. Encouraging the use of renewable energy, the technology

needed to ensure this energy, and electric vehicles set the stage for a

multitude of sustainable practices now and for years to come. The

Australian population will have an increased level of access to electric

vehicles and renewable energy resources, thus causing the severing of ties

with the fossil fuel industry and a newfound sense of independence for the

greater good. These changes will ultimately help the Great Barrier Reef

recover the most, as Australia will reduce their carbon emissions greatly.

Conclusion

The Great Barrier Reef, located in the Coral Sea, is an international

gem worth protecting. Due to intense coral bleaching, the GBR is facing

16
never being able to regenerate again, leaving a colorful assortment of

species to abandon their own ecosystem and killing off symbiotic algae.

The stakeholders involved, including environmentalists, the Australian

government, ecotourism groups, and fossil fuel companies all have an

interest in policies that could help or hurt the situation at hand.

Seemingly ambitious policies at the national and global level have been

put forth to save the reef, yet most have yielded ineffective results. New and

improved policy options, like establishing new shipping ports, redrafting

the Paris Climate Agreement, and pledging Australia’s infrastructure

budget to renewable energy all focus on the criteria necessary to save the

GBR: reducing emissions and pollution, and encouraging a sustainable

future. The strongest policy option of the three is to reallocate Australia’s

remaining infrastructure budget to renewable energy to encourage a

sustainable future, and reduce emissions. Saving the Great Barrier Reef is

not out of sight just yet, but we must implement effective policy in order to

do so before it’s too late.

17
 Literature Cited

Australian Government Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. (n.d.).Ports

along the Great Barrier Reef. Retrieved from
https://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-work/Managing-multiple-uses/ports-
along-the-Great-Barrier-Reef Australian Department of Agriculture,
Water and the Environment. (2018). Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability
Plan. Retrieved from:
https://www.environment.gov.au/marine/gbr/publications/reef-2050-l
ong-term-sustainability-plan-2018
Australian Institute of Marine Science. (n.d.). Coral Bleaching Events.
Retrieved from:
https://www.aims.gov.au/docs/research/climate-change/coral-bleachin
g/bleaching-events.html

Australian Maritime Safety Authority. (2014). North-East Shipping

Management Plan. Retrieved from:
https://www.amsa.gov.au/marine-environment/marine-pollution/nort
h-east-shipping-management-plan

Australian Maritime Safety Authority. 2019. Review of the North-East

Shipping Management Plan. Retrieved from:

https://www.amsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/amsa-1077-review-north-e

ast-shipping-management-plan.pdf

Bindoff et. al. (2007). Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level.
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis , Cambridge
University Press, pp. 385-432.

Brown, B. Coral bleaching: causes and consequences. Coral Reefs 16,

S129–S138 (1997).
https://doi-org.csumb.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s003380050249

Climate Action Tracker. (2021). Australia. Retrieved from:

https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/australia/targets/

Delany-Crowe, T., Marinova, D., Fisher, M., McGreevy, M., & Baum, F. (2019).

Australian policies on water management and climate change: are

18
 they supporting the sustainable development goals and improved

health and well-being?. Globalization and health, 15(1), 68.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-019-0509-3

EcoTourism Australia. (n.d.). About Ecotourism Australia. Retrieved from:

https://www.ecotourism.org.au/about/

Hancock, L. (n.d.). Everything you need to know about coral bleaching-and

how we can stop it. Retrieved from:
https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/everything-you-need-to-know-ab
out-coral-bleaching-and-how-we-can-stop-it

Hardt, M., Safina, C. (2008). Covering Ocean Acidification: Chemistry and

Considerations. Retrieved
from:https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/06/covering-ocean-aci
dification-chemistry-and-considerations/

Hurley, Joe. Martens, Jesper. Sacre, Chris. 2019. Shipping in Australia.

Retrieved from:

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=98a656e4-6538-4bdb-

b05d-2fe68909f8bf

Matthews, Alan. (2019). Accounting for the LULUCF sector in the EU’s 2030
climate targets. Retrieved from
http://capreform.eu/accounting-for-the-lulucf-sector-in-the-eus-2030
-climate-targets/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2021). What is Coral

Bleaching? Retrieved from:
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coral_bleach.html

Riley, Tess. (2017). Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global
emissions, study says. The Guardian. Retrieved from:
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fo
ssil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-st
udy-climate-change

19
Sexton, David. 2019. AMSA Announces North-East Shipping Management

Plan. Daily Cargo News. Retrieved from:

https://www.thedcn.com.au/news/environment/amsa-announces-nort

h-east-shipping-management-plan/

Slezak, M. (2017). Great Barrier Reef 2050 plan no longer achievable due to
climate change, experts say. Retrieved from:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/25/great-barrie
r-reef-2050-plan-no-longer-achievable-due-to-climate-change-expert
s-say

United Nations Climate Change. (n.d.). The Paris Agreement. Retrieved from:

https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-p

aris-agreement

20