[ad_1]
In a few months, the world has changed. Thousands of people have already died, and hundreds of thousands more have fallen ill, from a previously unknown coronavirus before appearing in the city of Wuhan in December 2019.
For millions more who have not contracted the disease, their entire way of life has been affected.
In China, emissions fell 25% at the start of the year, with people ordered to stay at home, factories closed, and coal consumption plunged 40% at the six largest power plants in China. China since the last quarter of 2019.
The proportion of days with “good air quality” increased by 11.4% compared to the same period last year in 337 cities of China, according to its Ministry of Ecology and Environment.
In Europe, satellite images show nitrogen dioxide (NO2) emissions fading in northern Italy. A similar story takes place in Spain and the UK.
Only an instant and existential risk like Covid-19 could have led to such a profound change so quickly; At the time of writing, deaths from the virus worldwide had passed two million, with more than 90,000,000 confirmed cases worldwide.
In addition to the number of premature deaths, the pandemic has resulted in widespread job losses and threatened the livelihoods of millions of people as companies struggle to face restrictions put in place to control the virus.
Economic activity stagnated and stock markets fell alongside the drop in carbon emissions. This is the exact opposite of the trend towards a low-carbon, sustainable economy that many have been advocating for decades.
A global pandemic that costs people’s lives certainly shouldn’t be a way to bring about environmental change, either. On the one hand, it is far from certain how long this drop in emissions will last.
When the pandemic eventually subsides, will carbon and pollutant emissions “rebound” to such an extent that it will be as if this far-sighted interlude never happened? Or could the changes we see today have a more persistent effect?
The first thing to consider, says Kimberly Nicholas, a sustainability science researcher at Lund University in Sweden, are the various reasons emissions have dropped. Take transport, for example, which accounts for 23% of global carbon emissions.
These emissions have declined in the short term in countries where public health measures, such as keeping people in their homes, have reduced unnecessary travel.
Driving and flying are the main contributors to transport emissions, contributing 72% and 11% respectively of greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector.
Famous epidemics
This is not the first time that an epidemic has left its mark on atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide. Throughout history, the spread of the disease has been linked to lower emissions – even long before the industrial age.
Julia Pongratz, professor of physical geography and land use systems in the Department of Geography at the University of Munich, Germany, found that epidemics such as the Black Death in Europe in the 14th century and epidemics of diseases such that smallpox were brought to the South. America with the arrival of the Spanish conquistadors in the 16th century, both left subtle marks on atmospheric CO2 levels, as Pongratz discovered by measuring tiny bubbles trapped in ancient ice cores.
These changes are the result of high rates of death from disease and, in the case of the conquest of the Americas, from genocide. Further studies have shown that these deaths meant that large swathes of previously cultivated land were being abandoned, growing wild and sinking large amounts of CO2.
The impact of a recent outbreak is not expected to result in roughly the same number of deaths, and is unlikely to lead to widespread land use change. Its environmental impacts are more similar to those of recent global events, such as the financial crash of 2008 and 2009.
“Then the global emissions fell dramatically for a year,” Pongratz says.
The reduction in emissions was then largely due to reduced industrial activity, which contributes to carbon emissions on a scale comparable to transport. Combined emissions from industrial processes, manufacturing and construction account for 18.4% of global anthropogenic emissions.
The 2008-09 financial crash led to an overall drop in emissions of 1.3%. But that quickly rebounded in 2010 as the economy recovered, leading to an all-time high.
“There are indications that the coronavirus will act the same way,” Pongratz says. “For example, the demand for petroleum products, steel and other metals has declined more than other products. But there are record stocks, so production will resume quickly. “
One factor that could influence the rebound of these emissions is the duration of the coronavirus pandemic. “At the moment it’s hard to predict,” Pongratz says. “But we might see longer-term and more substantial effects.
If the coronavirus outbreak continues until the end of the year, consumer demand could remain weak due to the loss of wages. The production and use of fossil fuels might not recover as quickly, although the capacity to do so is there. “
Globally, 2020 could still see a decline in global emissions of 0.3% – less pronounced than the 2008-09 crash
The OECD has predicted that the global economy will continue to grow in 2020, even though growth forecasts have halved because of the coronavirus. But even with this recovery, researchers such as Glen Peters of the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo noted that, overall, 202 could still see a drop in global emissions of 0.3%. – less pronounced than the 2008-09 crash, but also with less possibility of a rebound if efforts to stimulate the economy are focused on sectors such as clean energy.
Habit force
The coronavirus could also have a long-term impact on the sustainability of other, less direct means. One of them is to push the climate crisis out of people’s minds, because the most pressing concern of saving lives immediately takes precedence.
The other just makes the climate talk more difficult because mass events are postponed. Greta Thunberg urged digital activism to replace physical manifestations due to the coronavirus outbreak, while the biggest climate event of the year, COP26, was held in November 2020. COP26 attracted around 30 000 delegates from all over the world.
There may be another way that the behavioral changes underway around the world could extend beyond the current coronavirus pandemic.
A 2018 study by Corinne Moser of the Zurich University of Applied Sciences in Switzerland found that when people were unable to drive and were given free access to e-bikes, they drove much less when they finally got their bikes back. car.
While a 2001 study by Satoshi Fuji at Kyoto University in Japan found that when a freeway was closed, forcing drivers to use public transport, the same thing happened – when the road reopened. , people who were previously hired drivers used public transport more. frequently.
Thus, periods of change can lead to the introduction of lasting habits. During the coronavirus outbreak, habits that are coincidentally good for the climate might travel less or, perhaps, reduce food waste, as we are experiencing shortages due to storage.
Community action
One response to the coronavirus outbreak that has elicited mixed reactions from climate scientists is how many communities have taken big steps to protect each other from the health crisis.
The speed and scale of the response gave hope that swift action could also be taken on climate change if the threat it poses was urgently addressed.
“This … shows that at the national or international level, if we have to act, we can,” Donna Green, associate professor at the Climate Change Research Center at the University of New South Wales, told CNN in New Zealand. “So why don’t we have for the climate? And not with words, with real actions. “
But for others, like Nicholas, community action has raised hope for the climate in the longer term. And Pongratz sees the time afforded by self-isolation as a good opportunity for people to take stock of their consumption.
It’s safe to say that no one would have wanted emissions reduced in this way. Covid-19 has taken a heavy global toll on lives, health services, jobs and mental health.
But, on the contrary, it also showed the difference communities can make when they care about each other – and it’s a lesson that could be invaluable in dealing with climate change.
*****
The author is a leader in environmental management with extensive experience in monitoring environmental performance in private and public sector organizations. He is also an expert in ISO 9001 quality assurance and ISO 14001 environmental management systems, flood risk management, environmental risk, specialist in solid and hazardous waste management with an emphasis on risk management and compliance .
Reference:
- Analysis: Coronavirus temporarily cut China’s CO2 emissions by a quarter (carbonbrief.org)
2. The environmental impact of stopping the coronavirus in China – Axios
3. Coronavirus: Workers describe being hit by job losses and uncertainty – BBC News
4. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review – Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment (lse.ac.uk)
5.SR15_Full_Report_High_Res.pdf (ipcc.ch)
6. Coupled climate-carbon simulations indicate minor global effects of wars and epidemics on atmospheric CO2 between AD 800 and AD 1850. AD – Julia Pongratz, Ken Caldeira, Christian H. Reick, Martin Claussen, 2011 (sagepub.com)
Source link
