12 ms·
It's amazing and wonderful how much environmental damage seems to be recovering. Air pollution is down, carbon emissions are down as much as 17%, fish and shark
by acslater00 6y ago
It's amazing and wonderful how much environmental damage seems to be recovering. Air pollution is down, carbon emissions are down as much as 17%, fish and sharks are repopulating shorelines and beaches - and to think, all it took was the most severe public health crisis in 100 years, a catastrophic global recession, and an overpowering wave of human misery and death
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y agoAs predicted.
- ponker 6y agoWell, the day that humans manage to wipe themselves off the face of the planet will be a day of rejoicing for all species other than rats, raccoons, and cockroaches.
- justforfunhere 6y agoCare to explain why not for rats, raccoons and cockroaches?
- oliveshell 6y agoThey’re hardy scavengers that benefit from human settlement and food waste.
- trevyn 6y agoBenefit in the most horrific of ways. I once watched a cockroach eat a dead cockroach. It was very... enlightening.
- dkns 6y agoWaste/garbage created by humans is probably an easy source of food for them.
- HenryBemis 6y agoPlus rodents survive in hiding. If they come back up to the surface to seek food, then they will become targets of owls, foxes, etc. But Thule they live in the sewers, that gives them protection.
- rudolph9 6y agoIt’s unlikely humans will wipe themselves off the face of the planet without taking most species with them. Cockroaches are a likely exception.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- NeutronStar 6y agoIt's unlikely humans wipe all of themselves off the earth.
- ElKrist 6y agoAnother point to balance the "how much environmental damage seems to be recovering": CO2 in the atmosphere has a long inertia. The (reduction of) emissions in the past few months will not have any effect on the global warming for a few decades. Basically in the short/mid-term, CO2 emissions are accumulated to previous emissions, not replacing them
- TeMPOraL 6y agoThis only shows that, while CO₂ concentrations are the dominant control variable in the question of our long-term survival, the overall health of the environment is influenced by many, many more things, especially short-term. Now it is especially clear that protecting the environment and mitigating the climate crisis are two different, and only partially aligned efforts. Frequently, they're in opposition - which is why it's extra important not to confuse them. The example I tend to use is plastic pollution. Interventions like switching from single-use plastic bags and bottles to reusable woven bags and glass bottles may very well help with the amount of plastics (and microplastics) present in the environment, but they're also a climate disaster, because plastic bags and bottles are ridiculously efficient to make at scale. And so here, I also worry that despite the environment taking a break from us during COVID-19, this will turn out to be a huge step back climate-wise - as soon we'll have to start rebuilding, and there will be less money and will around to fund R&D and deployment of less carbon-intensive solutions.
- rorykoehler 6y ago> protecting the environment and mitigating the climate crisis are two different, and only partially aligned efforts I wish more people understood this. Too many times conversation are hijacked by the CO2 discussion when really in the short term we should be focusing 99% of our efforts on bio-diversity preservation.
- NJRBailey 6y agoWhat are the benefits of focusing on biodiversity preservation? I can think of some things like food security but would global warming not also impact on those?
- 0xddd 6y agoUnfortunately, it looks like this will be short-lived. China's emissions for some pollutants are already above what they were pre-shutdown. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-china-pollution/china-sees-post-lockdown-rise-in-air-pollution-study-idUSKBN22U09F https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-china-...
- throwaway888abc 6y agoOh, F*ck :( Greedy human race Signed: bleeding coral reef with sad penguin
- teruakohatu 6y agoIt's the tragedy of the commons. The only way to change it is for local/state/national governments to remove the tragedy.
- zapita 6y agoBut nowadays private interests can cross international borders with ease, while governments cannot.
- teruakohatu 6y agoA polluting factory has to exist somewhere. Edit: I am getting a lot of down votes so let me clarify: if external costs are not internalised, humans will ignore it. Internalising the cost does not even need to mean tax. Many clothing brands in my country, even the budget brands (think Walmart), have been pressured by consumers into using more ethical factories. The same could be done by forcing companies to disclose what factories they use and the factory carbon footprint.
- TeMPOraL 6y agoIt could have been non-polluting, but instead of redesigning, it's easier now to get nations to compete against each other for the location of that plant - and as part of that competition, relax the environmental protections. The "freedom of movement" for corporations (freedom of movement of capital?) has plenty of benefits, but this is one of the negative side effects.
- orion_mc2 6y agoImagine - what will happen when next big virus/bacteria pandemic hits the earth...Other species will stand a chance when human population makes some room ...it probably sounds bad but unfortunately the humans are the problem - not the CO2 or something else (they are just consequence) - proof is how nature thrives around Chernobyl
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Glavnokoman 6y agoYep. It is a shame that "intelligent" species need a virus or some other disastra and are unable to keep their population within the limits.
- vl 6y ago>a catastrophic global recession Is it catastrophic though? Market doesn’t seem to think so.
- TheHypnotist 6y agoA month or so back I thought I was going crazy because I began to notice just how clear the NYC skyline appeared from where I live. It's always been visible, but the clarity is what struck me.
- Someone 6y agoAnd the bad news is that, to reach our climate goals, we need to do much more. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/30797/EGR2019.pdf https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/30797/...: “the required cuts in emissions are now 2.7 per cent per year from 2020 to year- 2030 for the 2°C goal and 7.6 per cent per year on average for the 1.5°C goal.” With the help of this year’s crisis, that 2°C goal seems in sight, but 1.027¹⁰ is about 1.3, so even if that “as much as” is globally, we would need about 10% more, so we still would have to find new ways to decrease emissions. I don’t even see us keep our current gains. That 1.5°C goal certainly is way out of sight, IMO.