Hacker News Reader

Comment by Retric | Hacker News Reader

Point of no return suggests some meaningful barrier was crossed. It’s true we are further than after the first person used coal to start a fire, but today is just another step on a process that’s thousands of years old.

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.

View on HN

I find this view to be somewhat whitewashed, at best.

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.

1 ton of atmospheric CO2 released in 2020 is exactly the same as 1 ton of atmospheric CO2 left over from coal fires in 1020. There is vastly more CO2 from fossil fuel entering the atmosphere today, but it’s only a difference in quantity.

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.

The problem is there are clear tipping points - where one extra ton could trigger outsized negative outcomes. And worse, one tipping point could trigger many others. Scientists just don't know when they will trigger, but with every increase in temperature the greater the risk.

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

We have already reached many tipping points, and in the future we will eventually reach many more. However, that is simply another way that the effects of CO2 is non linear even though the quantity of CO2 is linear.

The difference is that, barring time travel, there is nothing we can do to prevent the emission of a ton of CO2 that was emitted in 1020 (and even with time travel there is little contemporaneous technology we could replace it with.) But there is potentially a lot we can do (at various levels of cost) to prevent the emission of one ton of CO2 in any future year and the consequences of that additional emission may be disproportionately worse. Your own post acknowledges this, and it’s very much the point of the GP poster.

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

What is disaster isn't self evident either. I, for one, consider the effect on various wild life systems as disastrous already.

Edit: surprised to be getting down votes.

Yeah this thread is filled with reactionaries downvoting everything that offends them :/

"For northern countries"

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.

That’s a fair point, however climate change has a much larger impact on temperatures at the poles than the equator. You still get rising sea levels and a PH change in the ocean, but the impacts aren’t evenly distributed. https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warmingpoles.html

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.

Yes exactly -- so to measure just by what happens to us in the north -- particularly when we're causing the problems -- is basically genocidal.

The north is where the majority of the food is grown and people live. At higher latitudes is also where the majority of change will be felt. Not to discount the affects in the south, but they are very likely less impactful.

Most people live there, and most food for those people is grown there. These are people, who are not responsible for the catastrophes destroying their ability to live.

Actually, Europe isn't the low hanging fruit you are looking for. It is the US and China. The current output is much more than the history "head start" of Europe.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com