The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
To extend the analogy, however, there would be something costly and difficult that the patient could do to slow or arrest the worsening of the disease -- which the patient would be less likely to do if the symptoms were lessened.
Also, since natural systems typically respond better to slow changes than to fast ones, the analogy would have to include nasty effects caused by sudden withdrawal of the drug.
To round out the analogy, the symptoms must themselves cause cumulative harm, which the drug prevents. Here, I'm thinking of effects like progressive melting of icecaps.
Regarding interruptions, if the cost is only 1/5000th or less of GWP, South Korea or the Netherlands could do it themselves.
Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
In any case, we also must mitigate CO2 on a large scale. There is a limit to how much carbon dioxide forests, deserts, and soils and can take up before they start expelling CO2 into the atmosphere.
Forgive me for repeating a comment I posted on Techno's Ocean Acidification diary:
The ocean is a tremendous carbon sink.
Oceanographers I've talked to are thinking that the changes in ocean temperature are too rapid for many species to adapt. The acidification rate of the ocean may also be too rapid for adaptation of species.
At present carbon emissions from human activities continue to increase at a steep rate.
Meanwhile, the increase in ocean temperature is speeding up the chemical processes of acidification. This is ultimately bad news for critters with exoskeletons. And for the food chain. One billion people rely on the ocean for food.
If the present acidification due to carbon absorption continues at the present rate, erosion from terrestrial rock will not supply enough buffering to counter the acidification. At some point the ocean will fail as a carbon sink. So the carbon will remain mostly in the atmosphere, creating a rather Venusian environment.
In this scenario, there's a tipping point that will be catastrophic unless drastic reduction of carbon emissions are undertaken.
Neither forests, deserts nor soils are carbon sinks, only (very limited) carbon stores. To remove CO2 from the atmosphere, you have to create organic matter and then bury it. As a first step in that direction, do not use recycled paper. Making paper and burying it in landfills is the only human-caused process that puts carbon back into the earth.
Earth will never become comparable to venus. Our oversized moon prevents earth from accumulating such a thick atmosphere. Also, please try to stay reasonable. We're talking about 380ppm CO2 on earth while venus has 965000ppm CO2.
The Venusian reference was irresistible, but, as you say, an exaggeration.
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 8 51 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 11 2 comments
by Oui - Dec 9 40 comments
by Oui - Dec 4 68 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 27 72 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 1 4 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 23 37 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 20 72 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 112 comments
by Oui - Dec 940 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 851 comments
by Oui - Dec 468 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 14 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 2772 comments
by gmoke - Nov 26
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 2337 comments
by Oui - Nov 212 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 2072 comments
by Oui - Nov 1510 comments
by ATinNM - Nov 135 comments
by Oui - Nov 134 comments
by Oui - Nov 124 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 10115 comments
by Oui - Nov 428 comments
by Oui - Oct 2916 comments