Which all doesn't matter at all because it'll recover afterwards. Framing it as an ecological disaster is just a way to engage all the people who are prone to worrying about the environment.
Do you rally think the global environment is in a process of recovery?
How much damage has to happen before the global environment becomes unrecoverable?
The fact is the majority of penguin species today have declining populations. Those are not recovering. A couple of million of them getting wiped out is unlikely to help reverse that downward trend.
The majority of the ozone depletion has in fact recovered. The planet is currently experiencing a greening of massive plant growth. The worst thing we do to ourselves as a species and to all other forms of life, is pollution. Chemical pollution. All life on this planet is carbon based. Plants eat carbon. Plants are in fact, up-taking more carbon via evolution.
> How much damage has to happen before the global environment becomes unrecoverable?
Where the damage in question consists of dumping freshwater into the sea? It would take more water than exists in the world to do irrecoverable damage that way. Try to avoid learning about rivers.
> Over 68 percent of the fresh water on Earth is found in icecaps and glaciers, and just over 30 percent is found in ground water. Only about 0.3 percent of our fresh water is found in the surface water of lakes, rivers, and swamps [1].
Fresh water has a different density than salt water, and ice melting in the artic and antarctica is resulting in a huge influx of fresh water that can disrupt ocean currents [2]. These currents currently distribute a lot of heat around the world, and them stopping would result in places like europe getting much colder, while other regions would become much hotter (and with the warmer oceans, probably also have extremer hurricanes).
The gulf stream that brings warm water from the Caribbean up towards Britain is driven by dense salty water in northern latitudes sinking and flowing south, but the North Atlantic is being flooded with fresh water from Greenland and the North polar ice. Roll those dice!
> Which all doesn't matter at all because it'll recover afterwards. Framing it as an ecological disaster is just a way...
That is a _very_ odd definition of a disaster. The Earth recovered from several mass extinction events. Does that mean that they were not in point of fact, disasters? That nothing is a disaster?
It is a localised disaster. Not all disasters have to be on the global scale to have relevance.
