4 ms·

How does "leaving it in the ground" get us back to 280 ppm?

csee 5y ago
It obviously doesn't and they never claimed that it did. The point is that it's cheaper on the margin to stop polluting than it is to keep polluting and then clean it up afterwards.
DantesKite 5y ago
It's not clear to me 280ppm is actually ideal, because below 150ppm, most plant life on Earth begins to die from the lack of CO2 in the atmosphere. It takes a couple generations for plants to adapt (which they can), but I don't imagine most crops and forests will survive the transition well. I actually think where we're at is relatively decent. We know what's happening, can reliably predict certain storms. Definitely don't want to go any higher, but going in the opposite direction for too long is entering ice age status. The goal shouldn't be to adhere to a specific number, but identify an acceptable range/boundary.
- dataflow 5y ago
  > I actually think where we're at is relatively decent. We know what's happening, can reliably predict certain storms. You mean aside from the massive wildfires, depleting groundwater with droughts in so many parts of the world, etc.? The status quo hits the 'sweet spot' for you?
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    Those wildfires are not new, and are more a factor of humans over meddling (putting out every tiny fire instead of letting nature do it's thing). Global warming plays a part but it's not as if nature was without forest fires pre-man. Likewise droughts are just as much caused by misuse of water resources than they are changes in rainfall. California in particular has no business having cities as large as it does given their groundwater situation - and that has been before global warming accelerated.
    - dataflow 5y ago
      California is not the only place on earth dealing with severe ground depletion, droughts, or wildfires. And it's not like putting the blame somewhere else somehow changes the reality.
  - DantesKite 5y ago
    The observation I'm making is that we know what the bounded risks are. We don't know what the lower bounds (or upper bounds) might do. We've planted lots of vegetation that depends on the growth of CO2 levels year after year (to some degree). It's not clear to me that if it gets too low that would be a good thing. By the way, I'm not arguing that we shouldn't decrease the CO2 levels. We should. I'm trying to have a nuanced and interesting discussion about a very complex phenomena. Each of those problems you brought up can also be mitigated with proper engineering as well. Take for example how Israel effectively solved the drought problem. Now that's an exceptional case and it wouldn't be logistically feasible to expect every nation to dedicate so much of their GDP to such problems. I'm just trying to suggest there are other variables at play, besides moving CO2 levels up and down like a thermometer.
- rcxdude 5y ago
  There is a substantial time lag between the concentration of carbon changing and the climate reaching its new equilibrium. Even if we stopped emitting carbon today the warming would continue for some time. So if you're OK with what it's like today then you still need to take some carbon out of the atmosphere to keep it like this.
  - DantesKite 5y ago
    Yes I agree with you.
diordiderot 5y ago
Imagine a boat filling with water, you would want to plug the whole before you start bailing out water
- SECProto 5y ago
  Imagine the first hole has been leaking for 200 years, and also getting a new hole each year. Also each hole grows every year. The boat is on track to be totally sunk in a couple decades. You probably want to start bailing immediately, also start plugging holes immediately. Except our technologies for bailing aren't practical yet (and may never be). If we don't plug the holes, we'll sink. If we don't start bailing, we'll sink. If we do both immediately, we might still sink but we've got a better chance.
- jjk166 5y ago
  Much better to bail out the water without plugging the hole than to do nothing and keep complaining about how no one can successfully plug the hole.

csee 5y ago

It obviously doesn't and they never claimed that it did. The point is that it's cheaper on the margin to stop polluting than it is to keep polluting and then clean it up afterwards.

DantesKite 5y ago

It's not clear to me 280ppm is actually ideal, because below 150ppm, most plant life on Earth begins to die from the lack of CO2 in the atmosphere. It takes a couple generations for plants to adapt (which they can), but I don't imagine most crops and forests will survive the transition well. I actually think where we're at is relatively decent. We know what's happening, can reliably predict certain storms. Definitely don't want to go any higher, but going in the opposite direction for too long is entering ice age status. The goal shouldn't be to adhere to a specific number, but identify an acceptable range/boundary.

dataflow 5y ago
> I actually think where we're at is relatively decent. We know what's happening, can reliably predict certain storms. You mean aside from the massive wildfires, depleting groundwater with droughts in so many parts of the world, etc.? The status quo hits the 'sweet spot' for you?
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  Those wildfires are not new, and are more a factor of humans over meddling (putting out every tiny fire instead of letting nature do it's thing). Global warming plays a part but it's not as if nature was without forest fires pre-man. Likewise droughts are just as much caused by misuse of water resources than they are changes in rainfall. California in particular has no business having cities as large as it does given their groundwater situation - and that has been before global warming accelerated.
  - dataflow 5y ago
    California is not the only place on earth dealing with severe ground depletion, droughts, or wildfires. And it's not like putting the blame somewhere else somehow changes the reality.
- DantesKite 5y ago
  The observation I'm making is that we know what the bounded risks are. We don't know what the lower bounds (or upper bounds) might do. We've planted lots of vegetation that depends on the growth of CO2 levels year after year (to some degree). It's not clear to me that if it gets too low that would be a good thing. By the way, I'm not arguing that we shouldn't decrease the CO2 levels. We should. I'm trying to have a nuanced and interesting discussion about a very complex phenomena. Each of those problems you brought up can also be mitigated with proper engineering as well. Take for example how Israel effectively solved the drought problem. Now that's an exceptional case and it wouldn't be logistically feasible to expect every nation to dedicate so much of their GDP to such problems. I'm just trying to suggest there are other variables at play, besides moving CO2 levels up and down like a thermometer.
rcxdude 5y ago
There is a substantial time lag between the concentration of carbon changing and the climate reaching its new equilibrium. Even if we stopped emitting carbon today the warming would continue for some time. So if you're OK with what it's like today then you still need to take some carbon out of the atmosphere to keep it like this.
- DantesKite 5y ago
  Yes I agree with you.

diordiderot 5y ago

Imagine a boat filling with water, you would want to plug the whole before you start bailing out water

SECProto 5y ago
Imagine the first hole has been leaking for 200 years, and also getting a new hole each year. Also each hole grows every year. The boat is on track to be totally sunk in a couple decades. You probably want to start bailing immediately, also start plugging holes immediately. Except our technologies for bailing aren't practical yet (and may never be). If we don't plug the holes, we'll sink. If we don't start bailing, we'll sink. If we do both immediately, we might still sink but we've got a better chance.
jjk166 5y ago
Much better to bail out the water without plugging the hole than to do nothing and keep complaining about how no one can successfully plug the hole.