RECENT content shared on local Exmouth social media pages is heartbreaking. 

The footage shows large parts of the Ningaloo Reef bleached by warming ocean temperatures and devoid of the vibrant marine life that makes it the best reef in Australia. 

This bleaching is not new, having started in earnest last year. 

Snorkelling at the reef’s two premier sites – Coral Bay and Turquoise Bay – during this time was an eye-opening experience. 

The corals were skeleton-like, marine life was visibly reduced, and plenty of detritus was floating around and settled on the ocean floor. 

It was not the spectacular site I was used to. 

Fortunately, we have been regulars to Exmouth for many years and know how incredible the place is when it is healthy. 

But those who visited for the first time during the past year may have left wondering what all the hype was about. 

As a result, they may never come back. 

Even worse, they may tell their friends and family not to bother. 

The long, expensive trip just is not worth it, they could justifiably argue, based on what they saw. 

That is not the word-of-mouth marketing we need. 

Bleaching of the reef is clearly catastrophic for the environment. 

And for those who only think in dollars and cents, the outlook is not much better. 

A dying reef hurts the state’s most sought-after recreational fishery and all the tourism businesses that rely on it. 

It hurts a commercial fishery considered among the nation’s most valuable. 

It hurts the small businesses that have forged their reputation in the tourist town, and bigger ones that have grown out to become players all over the state. 

Clearly, widely circulated images of a dead reef don’t incentivise international tourists to visit Exmouth and enjoy snorkelling or that other genuine bucket-list experience: swimming with whale sharks. 

The whale shark swim is reliant on a healthy reef to attract the aquatic giants and to promote Ningaloo to the world. 

The health of the Ningaloo Reef is a pressing problem that demands political attention. 

The answer is not stopping development, as some groups will no doubt argue. 

I am sure by the time this is published there will have been plenty of noise about how this shows we need to stop Woodside’s Scarborough gas project, stop Gascoyne Gateway, stop Tattarang’s lighthouse resort, etcetera. 

Two of those projects will have no impact on the reef and the third, Scarborough, is better than the alternative of coal. 

There is little that can be done in the short term to reverse the declining health of Ningaloo. 

But we do need to invest, now, and invest heavily, in science to improve the resilience of our reef in the medium term.

This is an endeavour that cannot just be left to resources companies to foot; it needs public funds and political buy-in. 

The health of Ningaloo should be a policy that sways votes here en masse, in the same way the Great Barrier Reef is a hot political issue on the eastern seaboard. 

And, of course, we need to unequivocally back the transition to renewable energy for the sake of the reef’s long-term health. 

WA is falling behind in efforts to phase out coal power by 2030 and we’re not even talking seriously about phasing out gas, which will be a necessary interim fuel. 

Beneath the public chest-beating about our renewable energy pathway are planning hurdles, investment jitters, approvals delays, and land-use concerns that combine to slow the rollout of infrastructure. 

The longer it is delayed here and around the rest of the world, the more our reef – and the businesses that rely on it – will suffer.