The Sentinel 2023

SENTINEL 2023

Table of contents

The energy that could save the planet p. 1-4

En quoi l’intelligence artificielle constitue-t-elle une menace pour l’humanite p. 5-6

Good news for the ozone layer p. 7-8

Comment TikTok est Nocif pour les enfants et les adolescents p. 9-10

Is it too late for the coral reefs p. 11-13

The energy that could save the planet.

Marc Monterrubio IB2

There is a technology that has existed for decades that could potentially reduce man made carbon emissions. This technology has been producing energy completely carbon free since 1958, it is additionally the safest energy there is, one of the cheapest and the most efficient but surprisingly is one of the most controversial. It is Nuclear Energy I am referring to. (Before we start, relying only on Nuclear energy is not an option, this article’s purpose is to shine the light on the positive impact of this controversial energy since there is a considerable probability it will play an important role in the mitigation of climate change).

What is good about nuclear energy?

Nuclear energy doesn’t release any Co2 in the atmosphere, making it a more sustainable energy than fossil fuels and biofuels. Additionally, nuclear power plants have a 40 (theoretically, 60 in practice) years life expectancy which is 10 years more than solar panels and wind turbines which is really important when measuring the sustainability of an energy as the production of solar panels for example is not very good for the environment.

A counterargument would be that this longer life expectancy isn’t enough as it requires way more materials to make a nuclear power plant than a solar panel, however I believe this isn’t relevant since to produce the same amount of electricity than a nuclear power plant you would need about 3 million solar panels depending on the size of the reactor.

Moreover, Nuclear energy is also the most efficient in terms of capacity factor (the amount of time a power plant runs for a specific amount of time, for example wind turbines only run when there is wind), closely followed by geothermal energies, which despite being one of the most sustainable energy cannot be relied upon because similarly to hydropower, they are limited to very specific locations which are often far away from urban areas, they also affect the landscape, either by flooding large areas of land or by altering land structure which can provoke earthquakes.

Geothermal energy and hydropower shouldn’t be disqualified from the equation as we need a diverse income of energy, but they cannot be relied upon for the majority of our energy production, neither could natural gas nor coal for obvious environmental reasons. Then come wind turbines and solar panels with a very low energy efficiency as stated earlier. One of the factors that make nuclear energy so efficient and reliable is that it runs constantly, compared to wind turbines and solar panels which only produce electricity when specific conditions are met: the right amount of wind or the right amount of sun.

Nuclear energy, contrary to popular beliefs, is also one of the safest with only 90 deaths per thousand terawatt hour (measure unit for energy). This is a bit less than wind turbines and solar panel (the amount of death for solar panels is contested because it’s not so much the solar panels that are dangerous but rather the job of roofer that is known for being one of the most dangerous jobs because of the falls) and a lot less than oil and coal.

Of course different organisations come up with different statistics as they calculate the amount of death differently (some consider the entire production of the power plants, some consider the nuclear incidents that happened in the past, some consider more debated health issues such as headaches and night terrors potentially caused by the ultrasounds made by wind turbines), but one thing that stays the same in all those statistics is that nuclear energy is always far less dangerous than coal, oil and gas, and in certain cases only slightly more dangerous than all its renewable alternatives.

Cons of nuclear energy

Nuclear energy isn’t perfect either. Firstly, power plants are vulnerable to climate change; nuclear power plants are placed next to rivers and the sea since they need large amounts of cold water to cool down their reactors, however, with the rising of temperature, the risks of heat waves and water levels rising could affect those power plants. Heat waves sometimes cause power plants to be stopped, not because they pose a threat to the power plant, but because adding water that is warmed up by the reactor into an already warmer water because of the heat wave could damage the rivers ecosystems.

However, even in the worst possible scenario, one in which the temperature rises by 4 degrees by 2100, the power plants shutdowns will not exceed 2% of the plant’s production. For the rising waters, the water should not rise more than 1 metre max by 2100 which will not affect the power plants.

Another risk of nuclear energy is the risk of a nuclear accident, although it’s hard to quantify the risk, it goes without saying that they are less important than they used to be, this is the results of the industry learning from previous mistakes, for example since the Fukushima accident, each country, even those with low tsunami risks changed the infrastructures of their power plants to minimize the risks of such an accident to happen again.

Additionally, the damages of nuclear accidents have been greatly exaggerated. The truth is that the Chernobyl accident killed 30 firefighters the day of the accident and about 4000 people died in 30 years due to the radiation according to the United nations. Fukushima didn’t cause any deaths on the spot, and it supposedly caused 1 death, which was never actually proven. It’s difficult to find the actual number of deaths due to radiation, as there is no way to tell if the cancer is due to the radiation or other factors.

Finally, all the physical abnormalities blamed on nuclear radiations are completely unrelated to those accidents, since radiations have been proven to only cause cancers. Of course, those numbers are terrifying and no amount of energy produced could ever excuse the death of a human being, but it’s nothing compared to the deaths caused by other energy sources. Then, another argument against nuclear energy is that we only have about 90 - 200 years of uranium left, depending on the source. Although this number is scary, it would still be 90 years of carbon free energy production and the life expectancy of a power plant is about 30 years, so it’s not like we are wasting any ressources. waste will still be dangerous),

France is a perfect example of the nuclear waste problem, considering it is the third country with the highest nuclear energy production and also a country with a very good plan to stock its nuclear waste. In France, 97% of the nuclear waste is either not radioactive enough to be dangerous or have a half life of less than 31 years, which means that they will stay radioactive for about 300 years max.

Only 3% of the nuclear waste is dangerous and long enough to be considered a real threat, the longer waste is radioactive the more resistant the place it will be stored in shall be since it will be more vulnerable to erosion, natural hazards etc.

For now, this waste is stocked at the surface, this in terms of safety is perfectly fine since it’s done in a correct and safe way. The real issue is that since the duration of these wastes are so long, there is no way to predict how they will be treated in 10 000 years for example (amount of time in which some of this waste will still be dangerous), no one knows if there will be a war, or if our society will collapse, leading to the loss of the necessary knowledge to take care of this waste. France to respond to this concern has launched the CIGEO project, which aims to burying this waste 500 metres underground in galleries and filling them up with concrete as soon as they reach their maximum storage capacity.

What now?

Of course, even though Nuclear energy is one of the most sustainable there is, we shouldn’t only rely on it, the truth is that even the nuclear industries don’t think nuclear energy can produce more than 60% of the total energy production. We need to compensate with wind, solar and hydraulic energies. Additionally, technologies are developing fast and investing more into nuclear energy could lead to a brighter future.

For example, scientists are working on a new way of producing energy called nuclear fusion, atoms nucleus are fusioned together creating a bigger nucleus. This technology could create technically unlimited amounts of energy, safely and without creating any nuclear waste with long half lives. In conclusion, Nuclear energy will undoubtedly play an important role in achieving a more sustainable future, and therefore we should encourage the use of nuclear power plants rather than trying to close them like some countries want to, for example Germany who closed all nuclear power plants and now have to rely heavily on coal. Nuclear energy is the perfect example of how complex the climate fight can be.

Not so long ago I believed strongly that Nuclear energy was dangerous and bad for the environment, and so do huge organisations such as Greenpeace still refuse to even consider it a possible solution. Of course, my words are as untrustworthy as any other, and they shouldn’t be blindly trusted, but I wish to open the conversation on this matter to force people to think and reflect to find solutions.

Jigyansa Beura MYP5

“Je pense que le développement d’une intelligence artificielle complète pourrait mettre fin à la race humaine”, a déclaré le célèbre physicien Stephen Hawking. L’IA (l’intelligence artificielle) comprend des systèmes ou machines qui imitent l’intelligence humaine pour effectuer des tâches et qui peuvent s’améliorer en fonction des informations qu’ils recueillent. C’est devenue une énorme controverse entre les scientifiques au cours des deux dernières années. L’IA sera-t-elle simplement un danger pour tous les humains ? Stephen Hawking a raison lorsqu’il dit que les humains doivent s’inquiéter de l’intelligence artificielle, car la technologie devient de plus en plus avancée chaque jour, elle prend lentement le dessus sur la race humaine et devient ainsi une énorme menace pour la société. Il y a de multiples raisons pour lesquelles l’IA représente un danger pour l’humanité, notamment : l’IA entraînera plus de chômage, L’IA aura un impact sur la justice, en mettant en péril le droit de prendre des décisions importantes, et un impact sur la vie privée et l’autonomie des personnes.

Alors que l’IA et l’automatisation sont devenues plus performantes, elles menacent de nombreux emplois dans le monde. Selon une étude réalisée sur deux ans par le McKinsey Global Institute, d’ici 2030, les agents intelligents et les robots pourraient remplacer jusqu’à 30 % de la main-d’œuvre humaine actuelle dans le monde. Les cuisiniers, les serveurs et les autres employés des services de restauration, les conducteurs de camions à courte distance et les employés de bureau figurent parmi les emplois les plus exposés à l’automatisation. Les villes les plus avancées du monde ne sont pas prêtes à faire face aux perturbations de l’intelligence artificielle, affirme Oliver Wyman, un cabinet de conseil en gestion. On pense que plus de 50 millions de travailleurs chinois pourraient avoir besoin de se recycler, suite au déploiement de l’IA. Les États-Unis devront réoutiller 11,5 millions de personnes pour qu’elles acquièrent les compétences nécessaires à leur survie sur le marché du travail. «Nous prendrons vos emplois», a plaisanté Sophia, un robot humanoïde alimenté par l’IA, sous les rires nerveux du public de 60 000 leaders technologiques mondiaux réunis au Web Summit, la plus grande conférence technologique au monde.

En quoi l’intelligence artificielle constituet-elle une menace pour l’humanitE ?

Les robots peuvent non seulement apprendre, rationaliser et prendre des décisions, mais aussi exprimer des émotions et de l’empathie. La société chinoise NetDragon Websoft, spécialisée dans les jeux vidéo et la création de communautés sur Internet, a annoncé la nomination de Mme Tang Yu au poste de PDG. Rien d’inhabituel, sauf que Mme Tang Yu est un robot humanoïde doté d’une intelligence artificielle. Le nouveau PDG prendra des décisions au cours des opérations quotidiennes et s’occupera de la gestion des risques de manière beaucoup plus efficace. Elle est censée «jouer un rôle essentiel dans le développement des talents et garantir un lieu de travail équitable et efficace pour tous les employés.» Ensuite, Le chatbot Tay, de Microsoft, était censé être un chatbot amical qui ressemblait à une adolescente et engageait une conversation légère avec ses abonnés sur Twitter. Cependant, en moins de 24 heures, elle a été retirée du site en raison de ses commentaires racistes, sexistes et antisémites. En outre, la technologie de l’IA a également été utilisée dans le cas de la prise de décisions éthiques. Par exemple, comment les voitures auto-programmées font-elles un choix dans le cas d’une collision inévitable? Les humains auraient beaucoup de mal à décider s’il faut percuter un mur et tuer tous les passagers ou heurter des piétons pour sauver ces derniers. Alors comment pouvons-nous attendre d’un robot qu’il prenne cette décision en une fraction de seconde?

L’intelligence artificielle a également des impacts négatifs sur les droits de l’homme, notamment le droit à la vie privée. Les produits de consommation et les systèmes autonomes pilotés par l’IA sont fréquemment équipés de capteurs qui génèrent et collectent de grandes quantités de données à l’insu et sans le consentement des personnes se trouvant à proximité. Les méthodes de l’IA sont utilisées pour identifier les personnes qui souhaitent rester anonymes et pour déduire et générer des informations sensibles sur les personnes. Cela signifie également prendre des décisions conséquentes à l’aide de ces données, dont certaines affectent profondément la vie des gens. Il y a une dizaine d’années, Target a développé un algorithme d’IA pour prédire si l’une de ses clientes était enceinte, sur la base de ses habitudes d’achat. L’entreprise leur envoyait alors des coupons à domicile. Ce type d’action prédictive s’est avéré problématique, notamment lorsqu’une femme a vu ses informations de santé personnelles révélées au reste de sa famille.

En conclusion, il est clair que l’intelligence artificielle représentera une énorme menace pour l’humanité si elle est mise entre de mauvaises mains. Les machines intelligentes vont remplacer les humains dans tous les secteurs de l’économie, car elles peuvent nous surpasser dans l’exécution de nombreuses tâches. Selon le rapport 2014 de la Banque mondiale, des pays comme la Macédoine, la Mauritanie et le Lesotho avaient un taux de chômage de 30,2%, 31,9% et 34,9% respectivement. Ce sont déjà des chiffres énormes en matière de taux de chômage. Imaginez que ces chiffres soient encore aggravés par l’adoption rapide de l’IA. Il y aurait une augmentation de la pauvreté, de la faim, de l’analphabétisme, de la dépendance, de la criminalité et une réduction de l’espérance de vie, entre autres. Le monde serait-il un meilleur endroit pour vivre ?

Good news for the ozone layer

Nael Al Cheikha IB2

The ozone layer is what is protecting our earth from harmful solar radiations and is, according to ONU mandated expert, on track to recover from the pollution it suffered ever since the industrial revolution.

This is thanks to the progressive elimination of nearly 99% of banned substances directly harming the ozone layer. Not only has those sanctions managed to preserve the layer, it also contributed in its recovery in the upper atmosphere as well as a decrease in human exposure to UV lights, according to the ONU experts.

The hole in our ozone layer originates from human made activities, mainly the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) previously used in fridges worldwide. Fortunately, the use of this carbon molecules has been severely slowed down with the 1987 “Protocole de Montréal” signed by 195 countries across the globe. This gave the chance to the ozone layer to be able to heal.

According to ONU Environment, if the current politics decide to stay in place with their policies, the ozone layer should get back to similar values as the ones recorded in 1980 (which is before the appearance of the hole in the ozone layer) in the year 2066 above Antarctica and in 2040 over the rest of the world.

However, some geo-engineering projects aimed at reducing climate change may affect this progress. As counterintuitive as it sounds, the idea of intentionally introducing aerosols in the stratosphere in order to reflect a certain amount of sunbeams into space might cause a problem in the recovery of the ozone layer.

One of these projects consists of injection of billions of sulphur particles in the upper layer of the atmosphere. The co-president of the scientific panel working on the ozone layer on the count of the ONU warns us that this project “could have as a consequence a significant decrease in the levels of ozone, there are too many uncertainties”.

Est ce que TikTok est nocif pour les enfants et les adolescents

Rafael Bishof MYP5

Les réseaux sociaux ont beaucoup de bénéfices et d’utilités comme le divertissement, mais ils représentent aussi un risque très important pour les enfants et les adolescents. TikTok, étant le réseau social le plus utilisé par les enfants et les adolescents, est la source de beaucoup de problèmes de santé mentale, physique et psychologique. Il est vital de se demander comment TikTok est nocif pour les enfants et les adolescents ? Pour répondre à cette question, il est important d’analyser les impacts sur la santé mentale, les influences négatives sur l’idéologie, les risques mortels et sur la santé pour enfin formuler une conclusion.

Tout d’abord, TikTok a beaucoup d’effets négatifs sur la santé mentale de ses utilisateurs. Premièrement, TikTok augmente le risque de dépression, d’anxiété et de manque de confiance en soi. Les adolescents sur TikTok sont constamment comparés physiquement à d’autres personnes, ce qui diminue leur confiance en eux même. Beaucoup d’adolescents poursuivent des standards de beauté physique complètement inatteignables et sont jugés par rapport à des critères complètement superficiels par les autres utilisateurs. Ceci peut se développer en cyberharcèlement à travers les commentaires ou des messages privés. De plus, il est beaucoup plus simple pour quelqu’un d’être méchant ou insultant sur internet, car ce n’est pas face à face mais derrière un écran. Plus de 20 % des enfants en France ont été affectés par le cyberharcèlement sur une plateforme sociale. Le cyberharcèlement est un crime et peut conduire la victime à tomber dans la dépression ou même à se suicider.

Ensuite, TikTok peut être utilisé par des adultes pour influencer les enfants et les faire croire à des idéologies qui peuvent être incorrectes ou stupides. Beaucoup de comptes sur TikTok ont pour but de propager de la propagande politique aux enfants pour influencer leur façon de penser. Ceci implante des idées dans le cerveau des enfants qui n’a pas fini de se développer. D’autres personnes profitent de la naïveté des enfants pour propager des idées religieuses et parfois utilisent aussi des menaces pour convaincre des enfants à être chrétiens en leur disant qu’ils iront en enfer s’ils ne prient pas. De plus, récemment, un mouvement sexiste et patriarcal sur TikTok et les autres réseaux sociaux continue de grandir. Ce mouvement s’est propagé très rapidement à cause d’Andrew Tate qui est l’influenceur le plus connu qui propage des idées reçues sexistes, sur les «mâle alpha” et

sur la supériorité des hommes. Les influenceurs comme Andrew Tate réunissent à faire croire des stupidités sexistes à leur audience, principalement faite de jeunes adolescents, ce qui est un gros problème et est complètement contre productif. Beaucoup d’adolescents ont même avalisé Andrew Tate alors qu’il est ouvertement misogyne, sexiste et a été accusé d’être impliqué affaire de trafic sexuel.

Finalement, TikTok impacte la santé de ses utilisateurs plus jeunes. Le flux de vidéos courtes sur TikTok devient très addictif pour les adolescents et les enfants qui n’ont pas un cerveau entièrement développé. Le fait que les vidéos ne dépassent pas plus de quelques secondes ou minutes en longueur réduit la capacité d’attention des enfants à long terme. En plus des risques que l’application elle-même a sur les jeunes, les utilisateurs ont aussi créé des défis et des tendances TikTok dangereuses et parfois mortelles. Un exemple d’un défi dangereux pour la santé est le “blackout challenge” qui consiste à arrêter de respirer jusqu’à la perte de connaissance, ce qui peut avoir des conséquences permanentes au cerveau ou mener à la mort. Un autre défi qui a surgi récemment était de voler des modèles spécifiques de voitures Kia et Hyundai. En conséquence, quatre adolescents sont morts dans un accident avec une voiture volée pour ce défi.

En conclusion, TikTok est nocif pour les enfants et les adolescents en réduisant leur confiance en soi, en causant de l’anxiété et de la dépression, en influençant la façon dont les adolescents pensent et en propageant des idées sexistes et misogynes, en étant un risque pour la santé, car les vidéos sont addictives et parce que les défis et tendances peuvent être mortelles. Personnellement, je trouve que TikTok est très utile pour le divertissement, mais cause trop de mal aux jeunes, ce qui ne me donne pas envie de l’utiliser. Il serait intéressant de se demander si les réseaux sociaux rendent notre meilleure société ?

Is it too late for the coral reefs?

Marc Monterrubio IB2

Coral reefs are some of the most diverse ecosystems on the planet, and are necessary for the survival of over 4.5 billion people around the world, who rely on the ocean for their primary source of protein. It goes without saying that the destruction of coral reefs would greatly affect both the environment and humanity. Unfortunately, scientists expect that more than 90% of coral reefs will die by 2050. Why are they dying? What impact will it have on us? Can we do something about it? Let’s find it out

Pollution

To thrive, coral reefs need clean water. In heavy plastic contaminated waters, bits of plastic cling to the corals, they tear open the skin of the coral, increasing the likeliness of infections. However, plastic pollution isn’t the only thing threatening coral reefs, in fact, 20% of corals are threatened by exposure to toxic chemicals. Those pollutants can smother coral reefs, speed the growth of damaging algae, and lower water quality.

Overfishing

More than 55% of coral reefs are threatened by overfishing. One destructive fishing method for the coral reefs is dynamite fishing, which consists in throwing explosives in the sea to kill fish and then wait for them to float to the surface to collect them.

Unfortunately the explosions also damage corals. Another fishing technique is cyanide fishing, in which cyanide is used to stun the fish so they can be collected and sold to aquariums, as discussed earlier, toxic chemicals are quite destructive to corals. The last but also the most used fishing technique of this list is bottom trawling. This is when large fishing nets are trawled through the seafloor for kilometers. Of course, those nets aim to catch fish but at the end of the day it catches and destroys everything on its way, including corals.

Climate change

The increase of temperature due to climate change is dangerous for the tiny algae that live on corals, unfortunately, those algae are necessary to corals since they make energy from sunlight for the corals to use. Climate change also makes natural disasters more common, threatening coral reefs. Lastly, the acidification of the oceans due to the increase of carbon dioxide causes a reduction in pH levels, which decreases coral growth and structural integrity.

What impact will it have on us?

The impact of coral destruction will first be felt by the people living next to them. It will first affect tourism, as the corals attract 15 million scuba divers each year. Coral reefs also provide protection from storms and erosion. The revenues made from fishing will drastically decrease, and the few fish that they will still be able to catch could possibly carry a disease due to them eating toxic algae that grow on dead corals. This disease is called “ciguatera” , and can cause vomiting, diarrhoea, nausea, and abdominal pains to humans. The impact on food production will be international and is threatening approximately half a billion people of famine. Additionally, the coral reefs being one of the most diverse ecosystems on earth are home to plants and animals that are necessary to the development of new medicines, they helped the research of treating cancer, arthritis, human bacterial infections, Alzheimer’s disease, heart disease, viruses, and other diseases.

What can we do about it?

To protect coral reefs, the fight starts at home, with everyday tasks. For example, properly recycling and disposing trash. As said earlier, one of the reasons for the destruction of corals is the release of plastic in the ocean, so it goes without saying that properly recycling plastic will help. Of course the best solution would be to stop producing single use plastic entirely, and if we hope to one day live in a plastic free world, everybody should try to reduce their consumption, starting by using reusable bags, avoiding plastic bottles, avoiding straws etc. Then, since coral reefs are also dying because of climate change, using eco-friendly means of transportation and reducing energy consumption will of course help. On a bigger scale, the use of fertilizer should be reduced, policies to stop climate changes should be installed, and human fish consumption should decrease. Then, coral nurseries are also being created around the world in which coral colonies are being grown from broken pieces of coral and then are transplanted back onto the reef. Lastly, heat-resistant corals can be collected, selectively bred and transplanted to other reefs to increase the reef’s chances of survival.

In conclusion, it is hard to say if we can still save coral reefs. Many people think it’s too late,and the only scientists who still believe we can do something about it say we have to do itnow. We might not be able to save the reefs, but trying would do no harm so we might as well give it our best shot.

The End

ARTICLES

Marc Monterrubio IB2

Nael Al Cheikha IB2 Jigyansa Beura MYP5 Rafael Bishof MYP5

Sources

The energy that could save the planet:

About RinkeshA true environmentalist by heart ❤❤. Founded Conserve Energy Future with the sole motto of providing helpful information related to our rapidly depleting environment. Unless you strongly believe in Elon Musk‘s idea of making Mars as another h , et al. “Various Pros and Cons of Geothermal Energy.” Conserve Energy Future, 27 July 2022, www.conserve-energy-future.com/ pros-and-cons-of-geothermal-energy.php.

Energy Pathways to 2050 - Assets.rte-France.com. Energy%20pathways%202050_Key%20results.pdf?trk=public_post_comment-text.assets.rte-france.com/prod/public/2022-01/

LeMonde. “Présidentielle 2022 : Le Nucléaire Est-Il Dangereux ?” YouTube, YouTube, 27 Mar. 2022, www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnTzsWM_gbQ.

“Nucléaire vs 100% Renouvelable : CE Qu’il Faut Savoir Pour Choisir.” YouTube, YouTube, 20 Dec. 2021, www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFkSWgiGyyo.

“Why Aren’t We Looking at More Hydropower?” MIT Climate Portal, climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/whyarent-we-looking-more-hydropower.

Good news for the ozone layer:

“Environnement: La Couche D’ozone Est En ‘Bonne Voie’ Pour Se Reconstituer.” 20 Minutes, 9 Jan. 2023, tuer-710829873414.www.20min.ch/fr/story/la-couche-dozone-est-en-bonne-voie-pour-se-reconsti-

Is it too late for the coral reefs:

EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov/coral-reefs/what-you-can-do-help-protect-co ral-reefs.

Joyce, Christopher. “Plastic Pollution Is Killing Coral Reefs, 4-Year Study Finds.” NPR, NPR, 25 Jan. 2018, reefs-4-year-study-finds?t=1647769847359.www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/25/580227045/plastic-pollution-is-killing-coral-

“Overfishing and Destructive Fishing Threats.” Reef Resilience, reefresilience.org/stressors/lo- cal-stressors/overfishing-and-destructive-fishing-threats/.

Reefbites. “What Would a World without Reefs Look like?” Reefbites, 19 July 2019, reefbites. com/2019/07/19/what-would-a-world-without-reefs-look-like/.

“Secore International: Why Coral Reefs Need Our Help.” SECORE, www.secore.org/site/corals/de- tail/why-coral-reefs-need-our-help.23.html.

Universalis❤, Encyclopædia. “Récifs Coralliens.” Encyclopædia Universalis, www.universalis.fr/ encyclopedie/recifs-coralliens/5-consequences-pour-l-homme-des-pressions-sur-les-recifs-coralliens/#:~:text=La%20destruction%20des%20coraux%20peut,la%20consommation%20de%20poissons%20r%C3%A9cifaux.

US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “How Does Cli- mate Change Affect Coral Reefs?” NOAA’s National Ocean Service, 3 Mar. 2015, gov/facts/coralreef-climate.html#:~:text=Climate%20change%20leads%20to%3A,to%20the%20oceanservice.noaa. smothering%20of%20coral.

US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “What Does Coral Have to Do with Medicine?” NOAA’s National Ocean Service, 1 Mar. 2014, oceanservice.noaa.gov/ facts/coral_medicine.html#:~:text=Coral%20reef%20plants%20and%20animals,to%20protect%20 themselves%20from%20predators.

“Why Are Coral Reefs Important?” Home, www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/quick-questions/why-are-coralreefs-important.html#:~:text=Coral%20reefs%20provide%20an%20important,found%20living%20 on%20one%20reef.