These views aren't completely mutually exclusive, but it does seem that as individuals we really can't do much. Yes, we can and should do something, but it won't be anywhere near enough.
Even with the global economy at a near-standstill, the best analysis suggests that the world is still on track to release 95 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted in a typical year, continuing to heat up the planet and driving climate change even as we’re stuck at home. Where do all of those emissions come from? And if stopping most travel and transport isn’t enough to slow down climate change, what will be?
Transportation makes up a little over 20 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, according to the International Energy Agency... Utilities are still generating roughly the same amount of electricity — even if more of it’s going to houses instead of workplaces. Electricity and heating combined account for over 40 percent of global emissions.... Manufacturing, construction, and other types of industry account for approximately 20 percent of CO2 emissions.Which is only 80% total, and the figures do vary a bit, but that's probably okay - and our emissions this year might be closer to 92% of normal rather than 95%, which is good. The point is that as individuals, it does not seem realistic we can do much more than slightly reduce our energy usage even with strenuous effort. We can many of us work from home, but goods still have to move around. We can switch to energy-saving devices, but there's only so many options available even for the most conscientious to choose from. Even if we eschew consumerism, we still need goods and services for entertainment (you try being in lockdown without using electricity), and we have little control over the energy used there.
With the significant caveat that total emissions will depend strongly on how long the lockdown lasts, this would seem to be a decent approximation to the best-case scenario of how much we could cut our emissions through individual choices : 8%. And we can't realistically decrease that any further, since few people would be prepared to live even in this current state permanently. Individual choices do help, but it would appear that they can't get us anywhere close to where we need to be (this is not to say that they might not have bigger environmental consequences for non-climate issues, however).
Since a Thanos-like "let's kill a bunch of people" course is not an option, even if might allow longer-term population controls, I submit that the only solution is technological. Yes, some cultural changes might help, especially in the "fast fashion" industry, as will efficiency, but without switching to carbon-neutral/negative energy sources, all the diligence in the world of turning off unnecessary light bulbs won't help. We need to get angry about the energy sources we're using more than we do about individual lifestyle choices.
The world is on lockdown. So where are all the carbon emissions coming from?
Pedestrians have taken over city streets, people have almost entirely stopped flying, skies are blue (even in Los Angeles!) for the first time in decades, and global CO2 emissions are on-track to drop by ... about 5.5 percent. Wait, what?
I've been saying that same thing (i.e. that attempts by individuals, even if applied well over vast majorities of the population won't amount to a hill of beans) for well over a decade.
ReplyDeleteThe real solutions involve switching away from fossil fuels _entirely_, and ideally increasing the availability and affordability of "clean" energy (and I include well regulated nuclear energy there) vastly. We need abundant, low-cost, clean energy to clean up our polluted mess.
Fun fact: nuclear energy is actually about the safest one by kWh. There is a surprisingly high number of people dying from falling from rooftops while installing solar panels. And that's even putting the RMBK of Chernobyl fame in the lot (and the three lightly irradiated workers at Fukushima, and even the thousands of deaths from depression and suicide from the ill-made and partially unnecessary evacuation).
ReplyDeleteFun fact: we can extract uranium from seawater, which gets renewed as more uranium gets dissolved from rocks to return at the same equilibrium, making it in practice a renewable energy.
I think the pandemic has proven our society is dangerously unable to tackle climate change, we've seen politicians hurry toward picking the most visually impressive but least effective ways to handle the virus. We've seen behind-the-scenes changes ignored as options in favour of major disruption. And, it sounds nasty, but we've been overly worried about trying to save absolutely everyone rather than looking at total harms and how to weigh them up, politicians are more worried about the more visible kidns of casualties as they know they'll only be blamed for that sort. Solving climate change needs major change behind the scenes, industry needs to clean up certain processes (steel and concrete making...) we know how it is just a little less profitable, all electricity needs to be switching over to nuclear and renewable immediately, all petrol stations must be forced to put up a hydrogen pump and keep it supplied for any hydrogen cars which come past, once the infrastructrue is in place hydrogen cars are a solved problem and much mroe effective than range limited electric ones (with rare-earth containing components which only have a lifetime of a few years, and horrednously non-recyclable batteries, also lifetime limited). The way to get control of the climate must be do cause minimum interference in the lives of ordinary people, but politicians will need to be brave enough to push some big corporations around (especially the awful oil lobby) to do this. The horrifically totalitarian reaction to this pandemic has shown politicians, except fro thsoe great guys in Sweden, are happy to push the little guys around but won't do anything which might put a dent in Bezos's empire. Also, how can we afford those vitally needed nuclear stations, wind turbines, solar panels and hydrogen fuel cells if we've ruined our economy in a mad panic at a virus which should have been handled with calm and hygiene the way every previous pandemic since the industrial revolution has been? Donald A Henderon, the guy who masterminded the eradication of smallpox, made a very wise recommendation in a 2006 paper on respiratory pandemics, that keeping normality as closely as posible is best for communitites, the challenege will be how to undo the damage our over-rection to covid has caused, and then how to handle climate change in a way which is less disruptive and more effective.
ReplyDelete