The WMO report confirmed that last year's temporary dip in emissions "did not have any discernible impact on the atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases and their growth rates." Concentrations of other gases methane and nitrous oxide also rose in 2020 and beat the last decade's average, it showed.
Am I reading that right? A major pandemic shuts everything down for a period, a lot of us are still working from home, and it didn’t make any difference? Will the U. N. soon be issuing a report declaring, “We Are All Well and Truly Screwed”?
The largest greenhouse gas emissions come from these sectors:
1. 29% Transportation: (cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes)
2. 25% Electricity (Generation)
3. 23% Industry (Factories, mining, etc)
4. 13% Commercial & Residential (Waste processing and heating homes/offices)
5. 10% Agriculture (Making food, does not count carbon sinks)
The only thing that really changed for a majority of people was commuting (cars + trains) and heating residential offices. We all still needed electricity, we kept many factories running (only pausing in a few locations), and shipping was even more prevalent (especially from online delivery services).
To reduce warming we need to do one of the following:
1. Reduce the amount of CO2 we produce below the amount existing life on Earth can consume.
2. Increase the amount of CO2 life on Earth can consume (make more living things that can photosynthesize).
3. Do both.
The lower amount of commuting probably helps quite a bit but it's only a start and wasn't really in full effect in the biggest polluters for the latter half of the pandemic.
But they also weren't a large contributor. In California over 3 months wildfires released more than 75 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. That number is larger than any year in the past 20, but it's also never expected to be 0. The annual worldwide CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels is expected to total about 33 billion tons this year.
I'm not sure what the sum of all wildfires over the year were, but I can't imagine they'd make any sort of dent compared to just burning fossil fuels.
500 people going round-trip to any destination they want one time is a drop in the bucket. Pre-pandemic, do you have any idea how many business travelers would hop on planes every single day, sometimes to travel just a few hundred miles (i.e. SFO to LAX)?
> sometimes to travel just a few hundred miles (i.e. SFO to LAX)?
Nothing wrong with flying from LA to SF.
Driving 400 miles gets old pretty quick. Depending on how heavy your foot is, that's ~6 hours of driving, and along one of the most boring stretches of road (I-5) imaginable. You will also need to stop and take breaks. And if you take PCH, it's 8 hours of winding road. Do that once for fun, but not twice.
In terms of cost, a one way ticket LA to SF or vice-versa is $39. You can get those at short notice. Assuming 30 mpg at whatever high speed you will be traveling, driving the 400 miles will cost you ~13 gallons, so if gas is $3 per gallon, there's no price difference between flying and driving. And in CA, gas is $4.50 now, so you'd be crazy to drive, as that trip will cost you $60 just in terms of gas.
Your time is also valuable. If you get to the airport an a hour head, then it's 1 hour at airport, 1 hour flight, 30 min getting out of plane and picking up luggage. Let's say at most 3 hours travel time, enter SFO to exit LAX.
You can buy a business class ticket for $80. Do yourself a favor and get the business class seat and watch a movie or take a nap. You will be first to board and exit, saving time.
Some figures to keep in mind, since CO2 is absent from your calculations:
Flying from SFO to LAX and back costs 0.2 Tons of CO2. That’s more than a month of your CO2 quota if we want to limit climate change to +1.5C. CO2 budget should be 2 Tons per year to reach that goal. Currently, emissions are 15 Tons per year per capita in the US.
You won’t have a CO2 quota don’t worry, your little comfort will be fine.
But easy oil will run out eventually anyway. Your children (if you have any) will live on an overheating planet, with mass climate migrations, and very high priced oil, even for things as basic as fertilizers.
Read it again: the idea that a present that emits carbon is a good thing is what needs to change.
And yes, I do know how many plane trips there were. That doesn't make it right, just like that fact that a lot of people smoke doesn't make that right.
Am I reading that right? A major pandemic shuts everything down for a period, a lot of us are still working from home, and it didn’t make any difference? Will the U. N. soon be issuing a report declaring, “We Are All Well and Truly Screwed”?