Carbon Emissions Dropped 17 Percent Globally Amid Coronavirus (nbcnews.com) 86
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NBC News: The coronavirus pandemic has forced countries around the world to enact strict lockdowns, seal borders and scale back economic activities. Now, an analysis published Tuesday finds that these measures contributed to an estimated 17 percent decline in daily global carbon dioxide emissions compared to daily global averages from 2019. It's a worldwide drop that scientists say could be the largest in recorded history. At the height of coronavirus confinements in early April, daily carbon dioxide emissions around the world decreased by roughly 18.7 million tons compared to average daily emissions last year, falling to levels that were last observed in 2006, according to the new study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
Drastic changes in transportation, industrial activities and air travel in nations under lockdowns could also fuel a decrease in this year's annual carbon emissions of up to 7 percent, the study found. Though significant, scientists say these declines are unlikely to have a long-term impact once countries return to normal unless governments prioritize investments and infrastructure to reduce harmful emissions. "Globally, we haven't seen a drop this big ever, and at the yearly level, you would have to go back to World War II to see such a big drop in emissions," said Corinne Le Quere, a professor of climate change science at the University of East Anglia in the U.K., and the study's lead author. "But this is not the way to tackle climate change -- it's not going to happen by forcing behavior changes on people. We need to tackle it by helping people move to more sustainable ways of living." The sharpest decline in carbon emissions came from reduced traffic from cars, buses and trucks, which made up 43 percent of the total decrease. Although emissions from air travel fell by 60 percent, it made up a much smaller portion of the overall decreases because air travel typically accounts for only 2.8 percent of yearly global carbon emissions.
Drastic changes in transportation, industrial activities and air travel in nations under lockdowns could also fuel a decrease in this year's annual carbon emissions of up to 7 percent, the study found. Though significant, scientists say these declines are unlikely to have a long-term impact once countries return to normal unless governments prioritize investments and infrastructure to reduce harmful emissions. "Globally, we haven't seen a drop this big ever, and at the yearly level, you would have to go back to World War II to see such a big drop in emissions," said Corinne Le Quere, a professor of climate change science at the University of East Anglia in the U.K., and the study's lead author. "But this is not the way to tackle climate change -- it's not going to happen by forcing behavior changes on people. We need to tackle it by helping people move to more sustainable ways of living." The sharpest decline in carbon emissions came from reduced traffic from cars, buses and trucks, which made up 43 percent of the total decrease. Although emissions from air travel fell by 60 percent, it made up a much smaller portion of the overall decreases because air travel typically accounts for only 2.8 percent of yearly global carbon emissions.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Excellent analysis. Plus 5G towers and orange man bad.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot Bill Gates tracking chips and billionaires bunkers.
Re:I knew it (Score:4, Insightful)
Understanding that people seriously believe them, I no longer find them funny at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Bill Gates [cnn.com] is rumoured to have a bunker under each of his houses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I knew it (Score:1)
They made america great again, didnâ(TM)t they?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This whole thing was perpretrated by the global warming cabal and United Nations Agenda 21 assholes.
I've seen this conspiracy theory around a lot, and while the theory itself is rubbish, the existence of theories like this is understandable. There's a mad power-grab going on in Western nations as governments discover just how much they can get away with when people are scared. I don't think it's even credible that the virus outbreak was planned (of course, there's a lot of planing around pandemic response, don't confuse the two), but when you see politicians moving so fast to ratchet up their power, you
Re:I knew it (Score:4, Insightful)
“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
Re: I knew it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
I used to hate career politicians. But man do I long for the stability of having one running the USA now rather than whatever you call that thing running the show at the moment. (I used to say business man but he sucked at that too).
Re: (Score:2)
Business leaders and heads of corporations are the global elites. They are the power mad assholes. Politicians are just their pawns. The "power grab" is more a straight up theft, bailouts for the rich and a pittance for you and me, paid for by you and me. The Washington insiders in both parties have bailed out the lobbying companies. They took taxpayer money and gave it to the special interests who directly undermine democracy by legally bribing politicians to do their master's bidding.
Unbridled corporate g
Re: (Score:2)
Business leaders and heads of corporations are the global elites
Oh Hell no. Those people work for a living. They wouldn't even be invited to dinner by the ruling elite. The ruling elite are upper class, old rich families with a century or more of preserving and growing wealth.
Neither are the ruling elite politicians. Politicians are mostly the puppets are the ruling elite, and certainly not amount their members.
Both of those groups have attributes which clearly mark them as not part of the ruling elite: their names are in the press, and they have jobs.
The "power grab" is more a straight up theft, bailouts for the rich and a pittance for you and me, paid for by you and me.
That's is also
Re: (Score:1)
God damn the cognitive dissonance is strong in you. You think that "old money" don't absolutely fill the boards of the Fortune 500? Those guys are all plucky outsiders who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps? Somehow, the "business leaders" are the good guys, and the bad guys at the same time, depending on what point you are trying to make.
This is how you sound: "Oh, see, MOST business leaders are great guys, upstanding innovators who work 120 hour weeks and sacrifice everything to make their workers'
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No he is right. People like Bezos and Gates and your "Fortune 500 board members" have a ton of money, but they don't control policy. Corporations just want to make money. The ruling elite want to control policy.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the ruling elite want to make money by controlling policy, specifically deregulation, and privatizing every social safety net including social security and medicare. Bill Gates' family had $50,000 on hand to drop on Bill's little business venture. They are "old money," not all of whom are filthy rich, after all, most of the family fortune goes to the eldest child so the younger children of old money do have less. Jeff Bezos family were also owning class, sure, they were petty bourgeoisie but that's stil
Re: (Score:1)
The boards of for-profit companies are mostly packed with deadbeat relatives of recently rich families. The very definition of the upper class is that no one works at any sort of job (excepting sometimes the boards of charities, and of "foundations" that really just manage inheritance).
When some reasonably successful vulture capitalist forces a company to give his layabout brother-in-law a job on the board, that layabout brother-in-law certainly does not have any power.
It's, uhhhhhh, those OTHER business leaders, the, uhhhhh, the bad ones who have grown their wealth (how?!?) for over a century who hold all the power.
Remember those "robber barons" of the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with your analysis is that you don't recognize that corporations are controlled by that old money. The entire Fortune 500 is filled with old money. If there was any good in capitalism, these old money vultures have eaten it and shit out a soiled replacement. And all new start ups are dominated by old money investors. Nobody does business in America these days without making the elites a buck in the process.
Old money is also a bit different than you make it out to be. It accepts new members. As
Re: (Score:1)
You seem to just want to rant about capitalism. I'll leave you to it.
Re: (Score:2)
No witty rejoinder? No impassioned defense of capitalism? Son I am disappoint.
Re: (Score:1)
"Old money" can't just put a bullet in a few million citizen's heads if they feel like it. Old communists can, and "socialism" just means "we haven't pushed through to communism yet".
You are comfortably ensconced in a system that requires free exchange as it's baseline principle, rather than force applied for the greater benefit of... whatever. "Whatever" as the excuse for what it actually means, the benefit of the winners at the force game, that is, the most brutal of those with political power. May you
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, old money has put more bullets in more heads than any communist. The USA has been putting bullets in heads at the behest of old money since before we were a country, Ask the natives here about that. Ask Central and South America about wars of profit the USA has perpetrated.
When you criticize communism, what you are criticizing is the violent, authoritarian regimes that are the only things that could possibly stand up to old money's aggression. Ask Chile about what happens when you peacefully elect
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You are wrong, the body count of capitalism is higher than anything communism has done. You do realize that slavery was part of capitalism, right? Maybe you haven't heard about United Fruit? We also have to count all the massacres of labor organizers.
And if we are counting death by starvation in the totals, well capitalism has a horrible record there.
We also have to count all the deaths by colonial misadventure. Capitalism's death count is in the billions.
Re: I knew it (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism has murdered far more than communism ever has. The USA has only been at peace for 22 years since we were founded. For the other 222 years, we were killing for capital. Just ask Central and South America about United Fruit.
Re: (Score:2)
Weren't the vegans claiming that cows, pigs and poultry were the main source of greenhouse gas?
No. They never claimed it was "the main source." The main source obviously would have been the century plus use of fossil fuels.
And, sarcasm tag notwithstanding, that was just a stupid post.
Re:Weren't the cows guilty for all GHG? (Score:4, Informative)
Weren't the vegans claiming that cows, pigs and poultry were the main source of greenhouse gas?
No, but they were correctly pointing out that cattle and other livestock are a significant source of the greenhouse gas methane.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, first off, vegans lie. But the rest of your post is kind of off base. Nobody credible ever claimed livestock was the majority source of greenhouse emissions. Hell, all of agriculture only accounts for about 12% of the problem.
But the kicker is that yes, Covid-19 HAS caused a reduction in all sorts of livestock. Closures of meat processing plants have led many ranchers to cull cows, pigs, chickens and turkeys. They just pile them in a ditch and burn them, because keeping them around until they can be
Re: (Score:2)
Let's be completely honest about this point. It's not that vegans lie. It's that PEOPLE lie.
Re: (Score:2)
My point being that I have never met a vegan who was not a consummate propaganda artist. They all believe that any lie is justified if it furthers their goals. Yes, all humans lie but humans with a fanatical agenda lie as a matter of course.
The government way of helping (Score:1)
This shows transportation is a small pie slice (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But do you care? (Score:2)
This is great because it shows we can make real progress by switching more people to using EVs and while migrating to non-poluting power generation systems. The real question is "do people care or are they still egocentric assholes?" My money is that plenty of people who could work using a cheap EV into their life will take absolutely no measures to do so and then there are others who couldn't be bothered to try to make it work because they are waiting for someone else to solve the problem for them. Don'
Re: (Score:3)
People will do what costs less, because we're not all independently wealthy and need to pay for food and shelter.
Re: (Score:2)
People will do what costs less, because we're not all independently wealthy and need to pay for food and shelter.
I was able to buy a 2016 Leaf with ~25K miles for less than $11K. I'm not a rich by any stretch of the imagination and in the long run it will save me money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, that gets me 1 spot to charge, if it was a 2 car house, then the level 2 would be pretty much manditory.
That doesn't follow. Whether you can get by with L1 charging depends on how far each car has to drive, not how many cars you have. If you're a two-car family and each vehicle drives little enough that you can recharge with 8-10 hours of L1, then your easiest solution is to use to L1 chargers, plugged into standard house outlets on different circuits.
If one or more of the vehicles drives far enough that you can't reliably top it up with L1 then you need an L2 charger. Or two. But I think you're overesti
Re: (Score:2)
I'd need to keep them both under 20 miles/day to alternate spots (10 hours x 4 miles per hour).
Re: But do you care? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I converted my 19 foot wide back yard obstructed by a telephone pole 4 feet in from one edge into a turf parking lot.
In the front I would have to cross a 10 foot porch, a 20 foot long front yard, a 2.5 foot sidewalk, and a 2 foot grass area to run a cord to a car parked in the front (assuming I can even get the spot directly in front of my house).
This isn't some contrived situation, it's pretty typical in the small city I live in and throughou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
By buying an EV, you are making your fuel source interchangeable without having to buy a different car... or in fact do much at all. And more and more electricity comes from renewables these days.
Re: (Score:2)
must be manufactured and charged with electricity that originates as fossil fuel.
Must? They might be currently but they don't have to be. Why would you make such a claim?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? I wrote, "switching more people to using EVs and while migrating to non-poluting power generation systems". The point is to switch to non-polluting systems from our existing polluting systems. This goes from top to bottom and each component has to be changed independently. Why would you think that any part of it must not be changed? Please quote the specific text because you really got me at a loss.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But do you care? (Score:4, Insightful)
The real question is "do people care or are they still egocentric assholes?"
I can think of no better illustration of the progressive position, and their condescending, ignorant, self-righteousness than the statement above. If the poster above could show the average American making just $25k annually how they could afford an EV, and how they would save money by doing so, we'd be well on our way to solving the climate change issue. Better yet, if they could convince businesses to allow remote work for the majority of their workforce, we'd be better off still.
But, good luck convincing your progressive brethren to go along. If progressives were serious about climate change, Google - one of the most progressive companies today - wouldn't have a campus. But alas, being progressive isn't about actual change, but rather, having the right thoughts and intentions, so you can believe yourself superior to others.
Re: (Score:1)
I can think of no better illustration of the progressive position, and their condescending, ignorant, self-righteousness than the statement above.
This has nothing to do with political ideology because almost all of you are egocentric assholes. Only 1% of cars are EVs because it's a human problem, not a political problem.
condescending, ignorant, self-righteousness
Nah, I'm pissed off that people like you, the people who could buy an EV still refuse to do so purely for selfish reasons.
If the poster above could show the average American making just $25k annually how they could afford an EV
You seemed to have missed the qualifier "people who could work using a cheap EV into their life" which yes, mean not everyone can. However, for kicks, let's just imagine how this could happen... gee, how did they
Re: (Score:2)
Several hundred million people just realized that driving into work every day really sucks and there's no particular reason to do it. I fully expect people to continue being greedy assholes, but now they've figured out they can do that without commuting.
Mother Nature (Score:1)
I wonder (Score:2)
They won't be happy... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who hurt you?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah, I'm all of those things. But when I have a choice, I choose not. Except being fat, of course. Food is great.
This is how Greta Thunberg proposes we live (Score:1, Interesting)
This is how Greta Thunberg proposes we live: shut down much of the industry and don't go anywhere. And in the end, if "models" are to be believed, we'll still get about the same amount of global warming as if we do nothing at all because emissions are "only" down 17% and you still need to run your furnace when it's cold. Although it is quite likely that those models are of the same level of quality as the Oxford epidemiological ones. Maybe should code review them as well before we start spending trillions o
Re: (Score:1)
"This is how Greta Thunberg proposes we live"
Listen to experts and do what they say? OH NOES!
Re: (Score:1)
How's the funeral business doin? Did we get "2.2 million" deaths "experts" were predicting just 3 months ago?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand this comment. Are you for it or against it. I don't really care where you decide you'd like to place your flagpole, but please pick a fucking point to argue. Spouting indecision nonsense like this doesn't improve the discussion one bit.
Re: (Score:2)
"I don't understand this comment."
OH NOES!
"Spouting indecision nonsense like this doesn't improve the discussion one bit."
What I meant was perfectly clear to anyone familiar with common internet vernacular. Learn to internet.
Plagues will do that (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Permanent remote working (Score:4, Interesting)
The sharpest decline in carbon emissions came from reduced traffic from cars, buses and trucks, which made up 43 percent of the total decrease.
This is the portion that is feasible to continue post-pandemic.
There is no reason why everyone needs to work in the same office 5 days week. Even if we only let 60% of people work remotely 80% of the time, we can have 20% decrease of CO2 emission permanently, and that is quite an achievement.
Re: (Score:2)
You're assume the world is run out of offices. It's not. When the economy picks up a whole world of new sources of emissions rise again, eventually people need to do actual work "in the field", be that field a shop, a service, a construction site, a delivery.
Good news for the people the lost their jobs! (Score:2)
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/... [noaa.gov]
Oh Really ... (Score:2)
But this is not the way to tackle climate change -- it's not going to happen by forcing behavior changes on people.
Oh Really?!?!
The ONLY thing that will get y'all out of this mess is behavior changes. BIG TIME!!!
Money will not get y'all out of this mess - fuck co2 credits, etc.
What will get y'all out of this mess is:
- stop population growth: aka. stop fucking like rabbits.
- stop fucking tourism.
Have y'all been paying attention the last few months - stop doing shit actually helps.
The world should NOT go back to "normal".
https://www.invidio.us/watch?v... [invidio.us]
https://www.invidio.us/watch?v... [invidio.us]
Alternative take (Score:4, Insightful)
An alternative take I read somewhere that I thought was kinda interesting was that even with everyone working from home and huge chunks of the economy down, we were only able to move the needle 17%.
I thought this was pretty interesting, because it highlights that even with the average citizen doing pretty much all they can (staying at home, no commute for work, no visiting friends, no flying around the world on holidays) and a lot of companies doing the same - despite that huge staggering effort put in by average people - the most it dropped was 17%.
The interpretation of this was that, if this is the most that citizens can do if we all collectively do almost the absolute maximum, then it is not really very much, so (in addition to people doing what they can) we also need pressure on whatever it is that is accounting for the other 83% that has been cheerfully ticking over while all this has been happening.
Re: (Score:2)
An alternative take I read somewhere that I thought was kinda interesting was that even with everyone working from home and huge chunks of the economy down, we were only able to move the needle 17%.
That's because we have one needle. My petrol usage is down 100% in the past two months. My electricity usage is up 250%, my gas usage up about 30% (it's getting warm so the heaters were only on for the first 2 weeks of COVID). I recycled a car battery that would likely still have been good had I not used the car, emissions indirectly are there too. I've supplemented side trips on the way home with ordering delivery (including the car battery). I still eat and crap so that needle hasn't changed.
I'm under no
Good news! (Score:1)