
Can we get to 350 ppm? Yes we can - jseliger
http://crookedtimber.org/2017/07/22/42710/
======
dietdrb
Until recently I would wring my hands and feel sad for a situation I couldn't
change.

Several months ago, though, I joined the Citizen's Climate Lobby, which is
building political will for a carbon tax and dividend (the only truly market-
based approach to limiting green house gas emissions). I know that warming has
happened and will happen due to past emissions. But at this point I feel I'm
working to avoid the most disastrous scenarios by limiting future emissions.

I have been inspired by my involvement with this organization, and I encourage
other concerned Hacker Newsers to consider joining.

citizensclimatelobby.org

~~~
0xcde4c3db
> carbon tax and dividend (the only truly market-based approach to limiting
> green house gas emissions)

I always heard cap-and-trade described as a market-based approach (by people
who talk about the actual policy instead of just trying to vacuously demonize
it). Can you briefly explain (or link to a good argument) how it fails to live
up to that description?

~~~
moultano
Ideally it is, but it is more complex to implement, and complexity can create
loopholes that undermine it. There's more opportunity for graft in how the
credits are distributed.

~~~
peloton
This is right, but I'd also add that the benefit to cap and trade is that it's
politically easier to do (since it's not called a "tax").

------
hnaparst
There is really no cause for optimism. The fact is that all the CO2 emitted
into the atmosphere stays there for at least ten thousand years, and we are
increasing our output of CO2. So actually, the problem is getting much worse
and is likely to remain bad for many thousands of years.

It is entirely possible to destroy the fragile earth, and humans are doing
exactly that. There is no reason that it has to have a happy ending.

------
zzalpha
But no, we won't.

------
madaxe_again
This is a nice notion, but ignores the feedback cycles which have already been
set in motion - at this point, reducing our emissions to zero may provide
little benefit, as as the Arctic and Antarctic thaw, relict methane is being
emitted at an alarming rate, wildfires are becoming far more frequent
globally, and oceans are no longer functioning terribly well as carbon sinks,
further pushing emissions.

I'm not saying we shouldn't _try_ , but I fear we're already past the point of
no return for catastrophic climate change.

~~~
todd8
I believe the higher levels of CO2 are a concern and we should do what we can
to reduce them. Yet, the points you make are not obvious to me. Do you have
reference to literature that I could read.

This article [1] in the journal Limnology and Oceanography (and others)
indicates to me that we don't understand the effect of climate change on
methane emissions from the Arctic and Antarctic seabed. Are emissions going up
or down?

Wildfires in the western US are increasing, but we've changed the way we
manage forests and forest fires in the west. The resulting accumulation of
brush in forests (for one reason because we aggressively put out even small
fires to protect encroaching development) makes big fires more likely.
Furthermore on the scale of centuries, as long as the forests stand they will
simply recycle CO2 by absorbing it as trees grow and by releasing it when they
die (either through rotting and decay or by burning).

As far as the oceans not acting as CO2, the recent literature that I've read
says that they are acting as CO2 sinks. The first two sentences of the
abstract from a Feb. 2017 paper in Nature[2] are:

"The ocean is the largest sink for anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2), having
absorbed roughly 40 per cent of CO2 emissions since the beginning of the
industrial era. Recent data show that oceanic CO2 uptake rates have been
growing over the past decade reversing a trend of stagnant or declining carbon
uptake during the 1990s"

[1] Limnology and Oceanography. Effects of climate change on methane emissions
from seafloor sediments in the Arctic Ocean: A review,
[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lno.10307/full](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lno.10307/full)

[2] Nature. Recent increase in oceanic carbon uptake driven by weaker upper-
ocean overturning.
[https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v542/n7640/abs/nature2...](https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v542/n7640/abs/nature21068.html)

~~~
sand500
How about a cycle of cutting down a lot of trees, burying the wood and then
replanting to sequester carbon ?

~~~
Sharlin
It is not clear that old trees are less efficient at sequestering carbon than
young ones. It used to be thought that old-growth forests are not good carbon
sinks but this may not actually be the case.

