"Events like increased CO2 levels in the ocean should be seen as the way things are, rather than one-off catastrophes."
This is a false dichotomy. Just because these events have happened regularly, on geological time scales, doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a one-off catastrophe from the point of view of homo sapiens. I'm not saying an extinction event, but it could be a catastrophic event.
In other words, taking the long view here (as you're doing) is way too abstract in this case. There will be real costs to change of this magnitude.
> Just because these events have happened regularly, on geological time scales, doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a one-off catastrophe from the point of view of homo sapiens.
I agree. Without the environment pressuring us back though, what would keep us from dumping CO2 in the atmosphere forever, or at increasing rates? We wouldn't even be discussing this.
That's the whole point of my comment: why don't we see humans as a force of nature themselves, as opposed to the more popular view that nature is static and humans are supposed to leave it untouched.
I understand the idea you're putting forward -- you have in fact repeated it three times.
I think the idea is less novel than you seem to. And more to the point, I don't think it provides guidance.
In a situation where we have no expectation of linearity, waiting for significant pressure back from the environment (as you say, "it might not be as catastrophical as the article pictures it") may prove very foolish.
This is a false dichotomy. Just because these events have happened regularly, on geological time scales, doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a one-off catastrophe from the point of view of homo sapiens. I'm not saying an extinction event, but it could be a catastrophic event.
In other words, taking the long view here (as you're doing) is way too abstract in this case. There will be real costs to change of this magnitude.