
Mont Blanc: Glacier in danger of collapse, experts warn - blue_devil
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49820542
======
exergy
It's depressing. I recently finished a hike from Chamonix to Zermatt, which
passes near a ton of glaciers in the Pennine Alps. They are _all_ dying.
Moraines exposed everywhere. What is supposed to be a glorious celebration of
the beauty of the Alps turns instead into sombre contemplation of whether the
next generation will ever know such beauty.

Mer de Glace, near Chamonix, is a particularly tragicomic example because the
authorities need to add more and more steps _each year_ in order to take the
tourists down to the glacier. It's receding that fast.

~~~
short_sells_poo
At risk of prodding at a hornets' nest here, I'd like to raise a controversial
question:

Mostly everyone here agrees (including myself), that human contribution to
global warming is going to have severe consequences and the rapid impact on
glaciers is an early and visible symptom of this problem.

However, I think most people also agree that the planet would be warming even
without human involvement (albeit at a considerably slower pace). I don't know
whether the glaciers would melt also during the natural warming of the planet,
but I assume so given that there were periods in the geological history when
it was much warmer in general and were no glaciers at these latitudes.

Yes it is sad that in one or two generations the glaciers will be gone, but
glaciers will come back when the next ice age comes around. On the other hand,
there are living organisms which could likely survive the natural and more
gradual warming, but will be driven to extinction by specifically the human
contribution. These species are not coming back, ever. Certainly not
naturally.

So perhaps rather than ruminating about whether the next generation can look
at large amounts of ice, we should concentrate on saving the parts of the
ecosystem which once lost, cannot be recovered.

~~~
jfengel
Glaciers are the charismatic megafauna of climate. They're easy to see and
feel attachment to.

Anybody paying attention to the science already grasps what is wrong and has
at least some ideas about what to do. But an awful lot of people don't pay
attention to the science -- not least because an enormous number of people
deliberately obfuscate it -- and so you need other methods of persuasion.

It's easier to get people to pay attention to large, attractive animals than
to concern themselves with small, ugly ones even if the latter are more
crucial to the food chain. We may not "need" the Alps glaciers, but they're
easier to understand than a 0.1 pH drop in the oceans, and they have the same
root cause.

Among scientists it may feel dishonest to focus on truthful but not-critical
aspects of climate change. Scientists were almost universally persuaded
decades ago, yet action fails to come because scientists are only a tiny
fraction of the population. Even a huge number of people calling for action
against climate change don't really understand the science. Getting anything
done, however, requires getting the attention of a majority of Americans, who
produce massively-disproportionate carbon and are disproportionately likely to
reject the evidence (or remain unpersuaded by it.)

So yeah, I'd rather "concentrate on saving the parts of the ecosystem" that
need to be saved. I'd rather be doing a lot of things. Instead, people focus
on what is possible rather than what is needed.

~~~
blue_devil
This is not about "picking" glaciers to save, they are probably beyond
salvation by now.

And _that_ is the point. If people can't be startled by the emblematic
"victims" like glaciers and polar bears, can we even hope for urgency? :/

~~~
jfengel
I personally am really pessimistic -- cynical, even -- and you kinda don't
want to hear my answer. I admire people who are trying and feel it's worth
trying to understand their tactics and strategy. Of necessity that means non-
rational arguments to appeal to non-rational people, so that means there might
be a rationale to be learned.

As I said, I doubt it. But it's just as well that somebody is trying, if
that's how they wish to spend their time.

~~~
blue_devil
Your pessimism may be due to a common human bias that occurs in coordination
problems of this kind. Some call it the "drop in the ocean" effect.

I hope this encourages you.

------
gdubs
The thing I always think of when seeing coverage of disappearing glaciers is
all of the places that rely on them for clean water. [1]

1:
[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/17/climate/melti...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/17/climate/melting-
glaciers-globally.html)

~~~
blue_devil
And energy. Hydro-power generation is big in mountainous areas.

------
doitLP
On the bright side, maybe we’ll find more Ötzi’s!

~~~
LyndsySimon
That’s actually a very good point.

Given that the glaciers are in retreat and permafrost that has been stable for
at least thousands of years is melting, are there any coordinated efforts to
seek out, document, and preserve the archaeological and paleontological
discoveries that are no doubt being exposed to the air for the first time in
modern history?

~~~
blue_devil
The discoveries are not always so romantically ancient.

[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-
one/10562017/M...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-
one/10562017/Melting-glaciers-in-northern-Italy-reveal-corpses-of-
WW1-soldiers.html)

------
dvdhnt
As of now, posted four hours ago and only one comment.

For a community that prides itself on disruption and global impact, HN sure is
quiet on solutions.

~~~
perfunctory
Maybe because solutions that are actually required are not in the area of
expertise of the HN crowd.

~~~
benologist
HN doesn't have answers because individually most of us have particularly
massive carbon footprints that we're busy ignoring. Every computer, monitor,
phone and peripheral carried a huge environmental cost to extract the
resources and manufacture the goods. If you have a few laptops and desktops
and some old phones and a wall of records your carbon footprint is a crater.

In the last 6 years a lot of Apple users weren't inspired by the newer laptops
and just clung to their old hardware for an unprecedented amount of time. This
is how we can help but it's just not what we want!

~~~
imtringued
Compared to the environmental impact of transportation those environmental
costs are absolutely negligible.

~~~
benologist
This data is from Apple last year. It simply is not negligible and they're one
of the few trying to improve their processes.

[https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/notebooks/13-...](https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/notebooks/13-inch_MacBookPro_PER_June2019.pdf)

13-inch MacBook Pro = 210 kg carbon emissions, 77% during manufacturing and
just 16% for transport

[https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/desktops/iMac...](https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/desktops/iMac_Pro_PER_June2019.pdf)

iMac Pro = 1468 kg carbon emissions, about 1/2 during manufacturing and just
4% for transport

~~~
LyndsySimon
I don’t think that’s what the parent was saying. I think they were referring
to the cost of transportation for the consumer, not for the product itself.

The carbon emissions of burning a gallon of gasoline is about 11 kg - that’s
an estimate, from a random website, so I don’t attest to its accuracy. It’s
just a starting point for the following:

I drive a 2000 Jeep Wrangler that gets 14 MPG. I drive about 20k miles per
year, which works out to 1,430 gallons of gas or ~15,500 kg of carbon
emissions.

Based on this estimate, my vehicle’s fuel alone is equivalent to 75 10” MBPs
per year.

~~~
blue_devil
Wouldn't it be great to have the CO2 kg equivalent noted on the price tags of
items/services?

