8 ms·

What does success look like in the climate change fight? Is there a point where victory can ever be declared? Is that a "correct" temperature (what is it) or

What does success look like in the climate change fight? Is there a point where victory can ever be declared? Is that a "correct" temperature (what is it) or a CO2 PPM number (what's ideal)? When industry and scientists stop lobbying for money to fight it?

alas44 3y ago
Ideally, pre-industrial levels of CO2 ppm and stabilization of planetary scale changes (ocean dilatation, melting of glaciers etc). Because of inertia at this scale, for the second part we are already in trouble, even if we were able to magically stop emitting CO2 today
- mhuffman 3y ago
  >Ideally, pre-industrial levels of CO2 ppm and stabilization of planetary scale changes I don't see how this is possible with our current population growth trajectory.
  - robjan 3y ago
    The global population is about to plateau and then start shrinking
ZeroGravitas 3y ago
This doesn't feel like a question asked in good faith but, 350 is a reasonable ppm target: https://350.org/about/ https://350.org/about/ edit: better link https://mn350.org/understanding350/ https://mn350.org/understanding350/
- londons_explore 3y ago
  I suggest 280 ppm is more akin to "pre industrial" levels, as that was the level about 300 years ago. 350 was the level around 1990, which is thoroughly "after we already messed it up".
  - scythe 3y ago
    I assume 350 is simply considered more achievable. It's not easy to remove carbon from the atmosphere, especially when you consider that a lot of it was not even in the biosphere before we pulled it out of rocks.
ravenstine 3y ago
It depends on what we want to do collectively, which seems largely undecided. If we want to look at addressing climate change as a way to stabilize the environment in a way that we see fit, then there may be more ways than just CO2 in which we could do so. Unfortunately, a lot of more environmentally-minded individuals, including politicians, speak as if their beliefs are that humans should have no impact on the environment whatsoever and that the environment of the mid-to-late Holocene epoch is the correct one. Neither of the latter is accurate or possible, but superficially it would seem compatible with the view that we should tweak the variables so that the environment suits our needs.
ben_w 3y ago
278 ppm is known to be ecologically sustainable. We can probably do higher; we probably don't want much lower. Net zero emissions means a much higher level, just one which isn't constantly still going up.
londons_explore 3y ago
If we bring global CO2 back down to 280 ppm (like it was in the year 1700[1]), then a lot of today's farming methods will have substantially lower yields. Our modern crops need those higher CO2 levels to grow fast[2]. Without other ways to grow more food, people will starve. [1]: https://www.co2levels.org/img/graph_grid.png https://www.co2levels.org/img/graph_grid.png [2]: https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/images/greenhouse-carbon-dioxide-supplementation/1.png https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/images/greenhouse-...
- insanitybit 3y ago
  source pls (edit: thanks!)
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    added
- ben_w 3y ago
  Greenhouses can have different CO2 levels to the outside, and it's not the only thing that has (or will) increased yield.
  - teruakohatu 3y ago
    Many greenhouses pump in C02. They call it CO2 enrichment.
- lisasays 3y ago
  Worry not. We'll be very lucky if we ever get below 450.
munificent 3y ago
I think it's interesting that Homo sapiens evolved during the last ice age where the climate was significantly different than today's climate. We already "won" a major climate change once despite having a level of technology barely better than sharp sticks and pelt cloaks. Instead of defining success based on climate stability itself, I think it makes more sense to define success in terms of what we care about: a thriving environment for humans and diverse other forms of life. I think we'll be "winning" climate change, regardless of average temperature or CO2 level, as long as we're able to avoid catastrophic loss of human population and the rate of extinction is within some acceptable limit.
- WastingMyTime89 3y ago
  > catastrophic loss of human population At the same time, the population has been booming to the point that close to half of the humans who ever existed are alive on Earth right now. This is a significant part of the current crisis actually.
  - mwcampbell 3y ago
    I remember reading, admittedly in a couple of science-fiction books, that the estimated number of humans that have ever existed is about 100 billion. Was that estimate wildly exaggerated? Or has it been dramatically reduced in recent decades?
    - WastingMyTime89 3y ago
      No, it seems you are right and I am the one who misremembered. So it’s only 7% of the grand total. That sounds less impressive.
    - stainablesteel 3y ago
      i've seen the same, the 100 billion stands afaik https://www.prb.org/articles/how-many-people-have-ever-lived-on-earth/ https://www.prb.org/articles/how-many-people-have-ever-lived...
  - 3y ago

alas44 3y ago

Ideally, pre-industrial levels of CO2 ppm and stabilization of planetary scale changes (ocean dilatation, melting of glaciers etc). Because of inertia at this scale, for the second part we are already in trouble, even if we were able to magically stop emitting CO2 today

mhuffman 3y ago
>Ideally, pre-industrial levels of CO2 ppm and stabilization of planetary scale changes I don't see how this is possible with our current population growth trajectory.
- robjan 3y ago
  The global population is about to plateau and then start shrinking

ZeroGravitas 3y ago

This doesn't feel like a question asked in good faith but, 350 is a reasonable ppm target: https://350.org/about/ https://350.org/about/ edit: better link https://mn350.org/understanding350/ https://mn350.org/understanding350/

londons_explore 3y ago
I suggest 280 ppm is more akin to "pre industrial" levels, as that was the level about 300 years ago. 350 was the level around 1990, which is thoroughly "after we already messed it up".
- scythe 3y ago
  I assume 350 is simply considered more achievable. It's not easy to remove carbon from the atmosphere, especially when you consider that a lot of it was not even in the biosphere before we pulled it out of rocks.

ravenstine 3y ago

It depends on what we want to do collectively, which seems largely undecided. If we want to look at addressing climate change as a way to stabilize the environment in a way that we see fit, then there may be more ways than just CO2 in which we could do so. Unfortunately, a lot of more environmentally-minded individuals, including politicians, speak as if their beliefs are that humans should have no impact on the environment whatsoever and that the environment of the mid-to-late Holocene epoch is the correct one. Neither of the latter is accurate or possible, but superficially it would seem compatible with the view that we should tweak the variables so that the environment suits our needs.

ben_w 3y ago

278 ppm is known to be ecologically sustainable. We can probably do higher; we probably don't want much lower. Net zero emissions means a much higher level, just one which isn't constantly still going up.

londons_explore 3y ago

If we bring global CO2 back down to 280 ppm (like it was in the year 1700[1]), then a lot of today's farming methods will have substantially lower yields. Our modern crops need those higher CO2 levels to grow fast[2]. Without other ways to grow more food, people will starve. [1]: https://www.co2levels.org/img/graph_grid.png https://www.co2levels.org/img/graph_grid.png [2]: https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/images/greenhouse-carbon-dioxide-supplementation/1.png https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/images/greenhouse-...

insanitybit 3y ago
source pls (edit: thanks!)
- londons_explore 3y ago
  added
ben_w 3y ago
Greenhouses can have different CO2 levels to the outside, and it's not the only thing that has (or will) increased yield.
- teruakohatu 3y ago
  Many greenhouses pump in C02. They call it CO2 enrichment.
lisasays 3y ago
Worry not. We'll be very lucky if we ever get below 450.

munificent 3y ago

I think it's interesting that Homo sapiens evolved during the last ice age where the climate was significantly different than today's climate. We already "won" a major climate change once despite having a level of technology barely better than sharp sticks and pelt cloaks. Instead of defining success based on climate stability itself, I think it makes more sense to define success in terms of what we care about: a thriving environment for humans and diverse other forms of life. I think we'll be "winning" climate change, regardless of average temperature or CO2 level, as long as we're able to avoid catastrophic loss of human population and the rate of extinction is within some acceptable limit.

WastingMyTime89 3y ago
> catastrophic loss of human population At the same time, the population has been booming to the point that close to half of the humans who ever existed are alive on Earth right now. This is a significant part of the current crisis actually.
- mwcampbell 3y ago
  I remember reading, admittedly in a couple of science-fiction books, that the estimated number of humans that have ever existed is about 100 billion. Was that estimate wildly exaggerated? Or has it been dramatically reduced in recent decades?
  - WastingMyTime89 3y ago
    No, it seems you are right and I am the one who misremembered. So it’s only 7% of the grand total. That sounds less impressive.
  - stainablesteel 3y ago
    i've seen the same, the 100 billion stands afaik https://www.prb.org/articles/how-many-people-have-ever-lived-on-earth/ https://www.prb.org/articles/how-many-people-have-ever-lived...
- 3y ago