117
submitted 1 year ago by mambabasa@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net

While not natural structures, their platforms have been embedded into the muddy seabed long enough to become part of the ocean environment, providing a home for creatures like mussels and barnacles, which in turn attract larger fish and sea lions that find safety and food there.

After two and a half decades of studying the rigs, Bull says it’s clear to her: “These places are extremely productive, both for commercial and recreational fisheries and for invertebrates.”

Now, as California and the US shift away from offshore drilling and toward greener energy, a debate is mounting over their future. On one side are those who argue disused rigs are an environmental blight and should be removed entirely. On the other side are people, many of them scientists, who say we should embrace these accidental oases and that removing the structures is morally wrong. In other parts of the world, oil rigs have successfully become artificial reefs, in a policy known as rigs to reefs.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 year ago

Is it possible to remove the part that's above sea level and make a reef out of that, next to what's already below the surface? That way nobody has to see these ugly structures and the sea life get more reef.

[-] doczombie@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Sure, anything is possible without enough c4.

Whether it's economical to do so and the risks of making a submerged navigation hazard are worthwhile is up for debate.

I suspect we'll land in between - many of these rigs are far beyond where anyone is likely to see them and should be retained as is. The ones closer to the coast should probably be decommissioned or modified as you suggest with navigation markers.

[-] FlihpFlorp@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

I mean why destroy them at all. I have yet to read the article and I’m ready to fall asleep so hopefully this is a coherent thought, but why not try to convert it into a research station or something wild life can use

Actually I do know why they don’t covert it because it’ll probably cost a lot and that’s without concern of ownership and all that fun stuff

[-] fartsparkles@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago

Removing the top part would mean ships have no visual cue there’s a bunch of metal underneath the surface that could wreck their ship. Better to just leave it intact.

[-] Agent641@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Thats a good point. Hide it just below tge surface so ships wreck themselves on it. Those sink and become more reefs that then go on to scuttle mlre ships. Circle of life!

[-] Seasm0ke@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Ted Kaczynski liked that

[-] FlihpFlorp@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Ah that seems slightly important and something I had not considered

[-] Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago

Ships use charts to dodge such things. All of those rigs should already be on the charts so as long as the "reef" is deep enough for small boats to pass over it should be all good.

[-] vrojak@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Tbh I'd kinda like to see some of them turned into hotels. It's not that I like oil drilling, but these rigs are still incredibly huge and complicated structures, and given more or less full access to a decommissioned oil rig and a decent camera I could possibly spend a couple days just exploring there.

[-] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 5 points 1 year ago

The upkeep costs would be huge, I imagine. They hard to access and are not designed for human leisure. Maybe one oil plataform could do it, for the novelty seeking guests, but can't think how the costs are going to work.

load more comments (14 replies)
this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2023
117 points (98.3% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5246 readers
366 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS