We are already experiencing negative effects of climate change. Can we reverse them? If not, we're beyond the point of no return. That's just terminology. It's vague because what our goals are as regards climate change is undefined.
Various economic models of the impact of climate change suggest for northern countries we only recently left the realm of net benefit. It’s going to keep getting worse, but it’s hardly a major disaster right now. Limiting future climate change is important, going back to some arbitrary point in the past isn’t a clear net benefit.
Hell, in 10,000 years humanity might be using massive amounts of orbital infrastructure to directly control the weather and actually prefer more atmospheric CO2. Or they might want to lower CO2 below preindustrial levels, we just don’t know.
Edit: surprised to be getting down votes.
There are multiple obvious, and meaningful, barriers. The effects of carbon dioxide production are not simply a collection of linear relationships. One tonne of CO2 today doesn't have just as much impact as one tonne of CO2 last year.
There are points at which ocean acidity levels become incompatible with certain forms of life. There are limits to carbon sinks. There are points at which positive feedback loops become active.
All of these things - and more - mean that there are very marked differences in the impact of the first coal fire and a steel plant (for a topical example) even after you normalize for the amount of carbon dioxide produced.
Presenting current and modern carbon dioxide production as simply a continuation of the first coal fire is at a minimum ridiculous.
Which is the issue, CO2 produced today will generally still be around in another 1,000 years. Across geologic timescales it’s going to be sequestered, but on human timescales it’s basically permanent. There isn’t a clear transition point where suddenly this ton of CO2 kills of the Great Barrier Reef, it’s a very gradual transition that means coral has a very slightly harder time growing today than it did yesterday.
Not burning a ton of coal in yesterday would have been as useful as not burning a ton of coal tomorrow, the only difference is we can’t go back to yesterday.
For example, the loss of sheet ice. And bleaching events themselves in the reefs too I suspect would fall in this category.
Some research here in case you're interested: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6421/1379
For example, the loss of sheet ice. And bleaching events themselves in the reefs too I suspect would fall in this category.
Some research here in case you're interested: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6421/1379
It's absolutely monstrous to think in terms of what's ok just for the global north, here. We've done the vast majority of this polluting, and the global south is, in fact, currently, undergoing catastrophic change because of it.
Another example is tropical diseases can move to colder areas as their carriers migrate north/south. However, there isn’t a hotter place to for insects to migrate to the equator from.
For the normal workers in European countries (who might be actually living on a tight budget too), the reality is, they cannot do much about any of this without taking considerable personal toll (so real and fast change mostly doesn't fly politically). They can in certain circumstances e.g. eliminate inefficient heating with coal or oil or maybe drive with a more efficient and less polluting car, which improves air quality in their areas and thus health. This is achievable currently with small incentives and we can also observe most of it happening in richer areas, where there is spare capital in families to invest in such things. All of this has its cost first and the benefit can be felt quite a bit later if at all.
Btw. it will change exactly nothing painting this as a conflict of the global wealthy north against the global poor south (implied). It is not very constructive and quite naive. Don't get me wrong, I am all for healthy environment for everybody as can be seen in my comments elsewhere.