Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathji
I am confused by this. What possible damage could be so bad that there will be nothing we can do to fix what we have done?
That seems like a really definitive statement.
I am totally on board with fixing things now, before it becomes more expensive to fix later, but to categorically state that by some random point that we decide to do something about it, it won't be possible to fix it, seems rather far fetched.
|
There's very little we can do once it gets out of our hands.
This the effect of positive feedback mechanisms. The idea that once we reach a certain amount of warmer, other natural warming process are triggered like a runaway train.
The best example is permafrost in Siberia. It has gigatonnes of methane frozen in the ground. Once that ground starts to thaw from warming the methane will be released. Methane is a gas that warms the atmospher 25x more than a molecule of CO2. As more methane is released then the atmosphere warms more which leads to more thawing of the permafrost releasing more methane.
It's is the height of human hubris and stupidity to think that we can screw with a global system like the climate and then control it once we think it's gotten too out of hand. By that time there will be no controlling it. That's why we need to act now, to experience short-term pain for longer term stability.
There are numerous studies about this, but basically acting now is WAY cheaper than acting later.
http://ecowatch.com/2013/delaying-cl...-future-costs/
Quote:
Published in the journal, Environmental Research Letters, the study looked at the economic impacts of possible international climate agreements.
If an agreement was reached to start taking action in 2015 to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius, then international economic growth would be cut back by two percent. Delaying those steps until 2030 would mean growth curtailed by around seven percent.
The report’s lead author Gunnar Luderer said:
For the first time, our study quantifies the short-term costs of tiptoeing when confronted with the climate challenge. Economists tend to look at how things balance out in the long-term, but decision-makers understandably worry about additional burdens for people and businesses they are responsible for right now.
So increased short-term costs due to delaying climate policy might deter decision-makers from starting the transformation. The initial costs of climate policies thus can be more relevant than the total costs.
|