The stated objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is to achieve “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” The most problematic aspect of this mandate is the open definition of ‘dangerous anthropogenic interference.’ Given that we have direct ice core evidence that concentrations of carbon dioxide are higher than at any point in the past 650,000 years - along with indirect evidence that this is the peak for the last 20 million years - it is fair to say that we are already interfering dangerously with the climate system.
Of course, one cannot go straight from showing elevated CO2 to ascribing danger. That said, the link between greenhouse gasses and increases in radiative forcing and temperature is incontrovertible. So too, the realities of icecap and glacier melting and ocean acidification. The question is no longer about whether or not we will cause dangerous interference, but how much danger we are willing to tolerate in exchange for less rapid and comprehensive changes to our high-carbon lifestyles.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
The only difference between anthropological interference in nature and nature doing its own thing is we think we have some say over what we do.
“, the link between greenhouse gasses and increases in radiative forcing and temperature is incontrovertible. So too, the realities of icecap and glacier melting and ocean acidification. The question is no longer about whether or not we will cause dangerous interference, but how much danger we are willing to tolerate in exchange for lesser obligations to change our lives.”
If that’s true, then to the extent the “damage” has already occured, it is a natural phenomenon. The only thing that is “human” is what we can control.
One implication of this is that the past has no moral standing whatsoever. It is no more useful to debate whether Napoleon was doing right by some action, as to debate the moral standing of the actions of others in abstraction of any effect you can have on them. The only thing that has any “humanity” to it, is what we actually do. That’s the extent to which the world is spontaeneous for us.
Tristan,
One reasonable analogy is between climate change and drinking large amounts of vodka. The way our bodies respond is ‘natural’ but the choice to keep drinking is anthropogenic interference.
We are now akin to someone on their tenth or eleventh shot. We are seeing significant effects, including the reality that there will be sudden and catastrophic effects eventually.
I wasn’t saying anything explicitly about morality in the post above. I am just saying that the debate about where ‘dangerous’ interference will begin is misleading. Dangerous interference has already begun.