[Theodores]

I expected more from Covid, for it to be a miracle cure for global warming, what with planes grounded and people not in the same consumption patterns.

But no, turning off the taps or turning down the taps a tiny bit isn't going to suddenly bring a halt to warming temperatures.

Interestingly though we have some people wanting to bring emissions to a halt for climate change reasons. But, with things like Chess you have to think a few moves ahead. Has anyone thought ahead past a drastic cut in emissions? If everyone stopped consuming (as if) and temperatures still went up, how would that work out? It would be a bit like Covid where lockdowns happen but the pandemic is not brought under control, maybe just slowed down for a bit.

[tremon]

Why would you have expected Covid to have any effect on the current climate? Even the most short-lived greenhouse gas (methyl bromide) has a lifetime of 0.7 years, so any changes in emissions would not show up until now. And its relevance today is next to zero, since it's been banned along with many CFCs since the Montreal Protocol. The relevant greenhouse gases have lifetimes of years to decades.

[Theodores]

My point is that even if we were able to drastically cut emissions (which is the current campaigning goal) we actually need to think a step further ahead than that, as in okay, we cut emissions, what now?

I have been reading the news on this climate chaos for decades so I am not naive enough to think that the planet will be magically restored to perfect tranquillity the minute the last burger eating SUV driver throws away their car keys and goes vegan. We all know we must cut emissions and go carbon negative but Covid has given us a glimpse as to how much work this really entails and how long we can sustain change for.

[moritzwarhier]

I think you overestimate the effect of Covid on carbon emissions. By a lot.