Before I moved to Switzerland at the start of this decade, I visited the Rhone glacier. It's a stunning drive, well worth the trip. When I got there, it looked like a frozen waterfall, coming over the edge of the cliff where the tourist vantage point is.
It's only open in the summer, so I'd drive down there each summer.
Each summer, it was like going to a new glacier. It retreated by a lot each time. You didn't need photos to notice that it was a good 10-20m shorter each time. The last time I went a few years ago the rocks on the edge were completely exposed and you had to walk a fair bit to where the ice was thick enough to carve a tunnel into.
If you looked in the tourist shops and the old hotel, you could see paintings of the glacier in the 1800s. Back then it filled up the whole valley. Nowaways you can see young trees there.
I’m not going to suggest a slaughter obviously, but an extremely strong economic recession could bring us back to pre-1990 carbon levels (when they were balanced, as per IPCC).
The hypothesized decrease of co2 in the 1500s from native american death was a decrease in the stock. Farmlands returned to wild states and sequestered carbon.
Glaciers in the alps have been advancing and receding for the last 10,000 years, with the last few thousand years primarily advancing through the little ice age. They are now retreating.
More context: https://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/aktuelle-themen/pumpspeicherwerk-... (German)
You really don't want to be a poor Nepalese villager living in one of these valleys when that happens.
"It features a wide diversity of ecosystems, including successional stages due particularly to the retreat of glaciers resulting from climate change. The site is of outstanding universal value both for its beauty and for the wealth of information it contains about the formation of mountains and glaciers, as well as ongoing climate change." 
Not entirely sure how a new dam would be compatible with its heritage designation, but it would certainly continue to illustrate ongoing climate change.
 UNESCO World Heritage List, 'Swiss Alps Jungfrau-Aletsch' https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1037/
Shouldn't we say that, from the point of view of energy generation and freshwater flow, climate change has been a net benefit so far, which we'll stop enjoying in the foreseeable future?
The glacier (and snow) average out flow over time. It acts as a natural holding pool.
Edit: Nobody likes the gloom and doom stuff I guess. Nothing to see here, everything is fine.
That's exactly the balance I see in climate change reporting. It's almost all doom and gloom. Articles like this one, which shows both positives and negatives, are an oddity.
Go tell all the climate refugees when their home gets swallowed up by the ocean or when a heatwave kills their grandma that they need to see the "positive sides" of the situation.
There aren't many if you live in a river delta, or a country that's mostly river-delta.
8.5m people live in Switzerland, 165m in Bangladesh, to pick two examples.
I guess nobody likes to be told which articles they should read, which part of news to focus etc. Balanced news feed is preferred. The stuff you mention was written on HN tons of times, we all know this
The real competitor is Li-Ion batteries which now cost about the same as pumped storage, and have similar cycle efficiency. Problem is the capacity decline after a few hundred cycles, which is unfortunate if you want to build infrastructure that is low-maintenance and survives decades.
If you are interested in the area, this blog post gives some thoughts to implications  though it is a bit outdated by now.
They can also pose a substantial danger in the case of failure, see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam (~2000 casualties, vs Fukushima Daiichi's estimated death toll of ~500).
(I'm a big fan of hydro power, just saying it also has its draw backs)
https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/bitstream/handle/20.... (page 83, German)
Also I would assume, the higher up the mountain the dam is build the smaller the impact due to less flora and fauna.
My point: Once you go into small and hard-to-quantify large-population effects, your error margins become ridiculous and you can pull out any conclusion out of your hat...
Second most obviously, because they want more power than the river can generate.
Third most obviously, because they want to leave some energy in the river.
And similar to air travel, people think it's unsafe because of constant fear mongering and focus on incidents that are statistically insignificant. There were more people who died at Fukushima because of the evacuation procedures than the expected long term death toll from radiation exposure (and, notably, there were 0 deaths directly caused by the incident).
I'm sure it's great for ad impressions, but the hate it generates surely outweighs any possible benefit to the advertiser.
No wonder revenue per ad is dropping.
What's the reason for this? What moves so many people to opt against using an ad blocker? It surely can't be lack of awareness that such tools exist, not for an audience like that of HN.
I sometimes find ads annoying when, fir example, they change the layout. But I leave it in by default.
What I don’t understand is what you think you have to gain from advertising ad blockers? If people subsidize your entertainment, shouldn’t you be happy?
The sooner ad revenue nosedives, the sooner someone will figure out micro-payments for content, the happier I will be to know the full cost of what I'm paying for content, rather than opaquely giving up my privacy.
I am aware that there's no such thing as 'free content'. However I would be much happier if I could pay 5$ a month or so to some 'we'll distribute that to the websites you frequent' type of service.