9 ms·

Individual action won’t solve this problem. We need to leave the fossil fuels in the ground, which means switching energy sources, which is not something indivi

by Joeri 5y ago

Individual action won’t solve this problem. We need to leave the fossil fuels in the ground, which means switching energy sources, which is not something individuals have much influence on. Reducing energy use at the individual level is good, but insufficient if the energy used comes from fossil fuels. I’m not sure we need to switch lifestyles that much, but we will need to radically change energy production. There has to come a global moratorium on fossil fuel production and the wells that exist need to be capped. If it comes out of the ground it will be used somewhere and the carbon will end up in the atmosphere. The more low carbon our lifestyle the cheaper fossil fuels will get and someone somewhere will always buy and use them. Regrettably politicians dare not talk about this elephant in the room.

ChrisRR 5y ago
We need both. We can't just ignore all individual action just because there's worse offenders. Everyone collectively doing their part will have more of an effect than sitting on their arses and blaming fossil fuels.
- FeepingCreature 5y ago
  I suspect the demand for everyone to do their part is harming the environmental cause by politicizing it. Instead, we should try for environmental regulation to be as unnoticeable to the individual as possible. The unwarranted fetishization of restricted living is a central part of the green movement's image problem.
  - skinkestek 5y ago
    Yep. There is plenty of room for environmentalism on the conservative side (I am a conservative): - self sufficiency / independence both at the individual level and as nations - economically smart - less wasteful with resources, better for the economy Certain people - especially on my side - making this a partisan issue is something I should really want to stop.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    > unwarranted What if people can't live the exact same lifestyle in a way that stops, or even slows, or even slows the acceleration of environmental catastrophe? What if "safe for the environment" isn't just another brand that you can choose to buy if you're willing to pay the extra dollar?
    - FeepingCreature 5y ago
      > What if "safe for the environment" isn't just another brand that you can choose to buy if you're willing to pay the extra dollar? But "safe for the environment" is a brand that you can choose to buy. Every environmental damage can be offset. I'd reverse the question: what if solving global warming is something that can be achieved without outlawing anything, including SUVs, plastic garbage and wasteful lawns? Certain people perceive global warming as an opportunity to reshape society in their preferred image; (visibly) ecologically conscious, "green", friendly, local, low power, low consumption, etc. This can be seen in the discourse around technological megaengineering solutions to global warming, such as a space sunshade - usually you will find in the comments someone saying "but then we'll just keep burning fossil fuels!" Yeah, so? I thought this was about warming?
      - titzer 5y ago
        > Every environmental damage can be offset. Loss of biodiversity? Sea level change? Loss of ice sheets? You can't pay a tax somewhere and unshatter that glass. > solving global warming is something that can be achieved without outlawing anything, including SUVs, plastic garbage and wasteful lawns? Oh, not even close, not if even if there were less than 1 billion humans on Earth. None of those things is sustainable in the long run.
        FeepingCreature 5y ago
        > Loss of biodiversity? Sea level change? Loss of ice sheets? You can't pay a tax somewhere and unshatter that glass. Sea level change and ice sheets are a result of climate change and thus can be offset with carbon offsets; they're the poster child for the concept. I don't recognize loss of biodiversity as damage. > Oh, not even close, not if even if there were less than 1 billion humans on Earth. None of those things is sustainable in the long run. Those things are negligible footnotes in the long run. And all of those things, including the plastic bags, can be run off solar. All it needs are the right incentives.
flr03 5y ago
Individuals vote and buy. Companies keep doing what they do because: 1. The law allows it 2. There is a demand for their products
zejn 5y ago
Individuals can and should reduce their direct CO2 footprint. Most of personal energy budget goes for transportation and heating and/or cooling the living spaces. Two solutions enable you to stop directly burning stuff: EVs and heatpumps. Beyond that, cap-and-trade scheme has worked to reduce SO2 emissions and it will work to reduce CO2 emissions.
- jsinai 5y ago
  Am EV over a fuel burning car is huge improvement, however EV’s alone are not a sustainable solution to our transport needs. There needs to be mass transit and wider adoption of cycling/walking in more towns and cities. EV’s are still burning fuel if they’re not charged using 100% renewable energy, which clearly we are not at yet, and at the end of the day they’re _still_ an inefficient means of transporting people over any distance. To reduce transportation emissions worldwide, there needs to be greater emphasis on alternative modes of transports to cars, electric or not. - Long distances should be covered by train/bus. - Medium distances by metro/bus/tram/whatever works in a given city’s geography and layout. - short distances by cycling/walking. - an EV when you need the flexibility of a car.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    The last point is “pretty damn often” at least in the US now.
- NumberWangMan 5y ago
  One issue with individual action, in the absence of a market incentive such as cap-and-trade or a carbon tax, is that reducing your use of power/fossil fuels reduces demand, thus ever so slightly reducing prices, which will give others licence to use more. It doesn't 100% cancel out your efforts, but it does reduce the effect. One issue with EVs is that they aren't necessarily a feasible option for a lot of households due to their cost. Putting a market incentive in place would lead to a hundred different ways of reducing our CO2 emissions from driving, not limited by the ingenuity of one person or organization. More people working from home, more carpooling, distributed co-working spaces, more use of public transportation, even shifting how we design and zone our towns and cities, are a few things I can think of. I strongly recommend that anyone who wants to take a very direct, immediate, simple action to move the USA toward having a carbon fee and dividend policy* take a look at this (or at the very least, send it to your environmentally concerned friends and family): https://citizensclimatelobby.org/senate/ https://citizensclimatelobby.org/senate/ (*a tax on carbon, where, that get returned to all citizens so as to reduce or even eliminate impact on lower income families)
spaniard89277 5y ago
You can't transition from dinosaurs to sun in a day, so you need both. And if you need both, you need individuals to make the switch too. And for individuals to make the switch, you need to allow it.
- ygjb 5y ago
  This argument is the problem. If we stopped producing fossil fuels right now, there would be an economic collapse, and starvation, and probably a few wars. In 50-75 years we will probably be looking back in horror at the missed opportunity to avoid the ongoing economic collapse, the massive famine, starvation, and plagues that will follow on COVID, and the continuous wars as refugees flood from the front lines of climate collapse to places where the impacts aren't as severe and immediate.
  - maccard 5y ago
    I went to school in the 90s and we were learning about climate change then. The argument of "we can't stop now" seemed good enough 25 years ago, but we've still not actually made any progress towards making it easier to stop. We need to do that right now.
skinkestek 5y ago
> Individual action won’t solve this problem. Not sure if we agree or not. To make it clear, what I write is not about individual actions but about smart legislation and massive campaigns: - mandate teaching practical repair work instead of todays "feel good"/"feel bad" subjects environmental studies in school - a giant hike on import taxes on fast fashion and cheap "use once" gadgets and electronics - gradually increase mandatory warranties until selling low quality is a losing prospect - make "news anchors" - at least in public tv stations - use more ordinary clothing, and reuse it. - do make ads and tv shows about cobolt mining - do inform the public about our unhealthy dependency on China - do make ads about the stupidity of living in wastefulness - edit: do mock "individualism" that consists of having to go to exotic places - edit: do tax food import! Urge other countries to do the same! Especially anyone who burns rainforest.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  "Individual action" is a euphemism for changing your lifestyle in the slightest, even if imposed from outside through tariffs/taxes or other regulation. What people want is their exact same lifestyle, except eveything bad has been spraypainted green. It's understandable, I want my wishes to turn things into gold. Action against companies is an extension of action against consumption, not an alternative.
  - skinkestek 5y ago
    I'd say many are ready for individual action but are discouraged on a daily basis especially by - hypocritical politicians and environmentalists traveling the world on first class/private jets - negativity like yours and the one I originally answered - misinformation/information overload/infighting: whatever good someone tries to do someone will pop up to explain why it is bad: nuclear, organic, frugality, you name it, someone will magically pop up to tell you how worthless exactly your contribution is. I say: almost every effort is worthwhile as long as one doesn't actively destroy. At least spread enthusiasm and knowledge.
shellfishgene 5y ago
> which means switching energy sources, which is not something individuals have much influence on I'm not sure how it is in the US or around the world, but in Germany switching to 100% renewable energy for your home takes about 10 minutes online, by changing contract or company. Sure - if everyone did it there would not be enough supply, but apparently the majority does not despite being able to.
- skinkestek 5y ago
  Good! I'll just mention though that I think there is some double dipping going on here: "Every" Norwegian seems to be happily thinking that they are using green hydropower, while at the same time the green certificates are sold to Germany. Not saying this to discourage you guys, what you do makes green power more viable. Edit: The problem is Norwegians are living happy lives thinking they aren't contributing from power at least and nobody is telling. I only want to help lit a fire under the feet of Norwegians :-) And personally I could accept a small extra fee to get certified nuclear power ;-) Edit 2: feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
tonyedgecombe 5y ago
>Individual action won’t solve this problem. Although from an individuals perspective it makes sense to change on your own terms rather than waiting for it to be forced on you.
Dumblydorr 5y ago
Individual actions help, they aren't sufficient alone but if every citizen went vegan and didn't vacation, it would probably buy us a couple more years to transition our energy system. Every little bit helps, but I do agree industry is the low hanging and greater emitting fruit that must change first. For instance air conditioning, there are very potent greenhouse gasses in ACs, companies would do well to phase those out fully and quickly and dispose of them properly. A little government incentive there would be a massive win, much easier than telling humans not to travel.
triceratops 5y ago
> Individual action won’t solve this problem This is true. But if large portions of the electorate start living like GP, they'll have no problem with voting for carbon taxes and other measures that'll cost money. They won't be swayed by talking heads on TV shouting "environmental Marxism!".
- skinkestek 5y ago
  Since I am GP: I really hope I'd not fall for anything so stupid :-) That said I am also a conservative and I think I know a bit about conservatives; if one want conservatives to change as fast as possible phrase it in a way that sounds reasonable to the conservative mind: - it is economically smart on individual level - "repairing things is the traditional thing to do" and "it feels good to be in control" - "industry should look for ways to save resources to stay competitive and increase yield on investment for shareholders" (sorry, English is not my first language, if this reads as a parody it is not meant as) - "take advantage of the green wave". Competitive advantage: Point out that wealthy consumers will, on average, choose the greener product if they are otherwise equal. (Maybe poor ones will too, but we are here to sell this idea, aren't we ;-) - On a national level: we need to get independence from China - "reach individual monetary independence faster by making smart choices" Doing this instead of continuing to make a partisan issue about it should go a long way I think. That is, if getting the results is more important than "being right". People are already making money this way: just yesterday I heard a close friend explaining enthusiastically (I'll translate it on the fly from my native language as well as adding my explanation of why I think this was potent): - a US jeans company had gotten hold of "the last real loom that wasn't sent to China" (local business argument) - "hired the old operators to teach the how to use it" (traditional argument), - "picked it apart - about a million pieces - and restored it" (self sufficient etc argument) - and are now selling expensive pants - but it is real jeans (the actual sales argument)
  - triceratops 5y ago
    There are different ways to reach different sections of the electorate, and we should use all of them. I'm in total agreement with you that those are the talking points to use with people on the conservative side of the political spectrum. > Doing this instead of continuing to make a partisan issue Unfortunately, making it (doesn't matter what "it" is) a partisan issue has been shown to work, over and over and over. It's depressingly predictable at this point. People go into all sorts of mental contortions and doublethink to explain why the stance "their" side has taken is the "right" one. People and industries who have more to lose from a greener economy have no hesitation in employing these tactics to stall or block change, and influence people.
dleslie 5y ago
> Individual action won’t solve this problem. We need to leave the fossil fuels in the ground, which means switching energy sources, which is not something individuals have much influence on. The covid shutdown should have put this myth to bed forever. Hundreds of millions stuck at home and no longer commuting took a massive dent out of carbon emissions and sent shock waves through the oil industry. Individual action can save the planet; we have to be drops in the flood. > I’m not sure we need to switch lifestyles that much, but we will need to radically change energy production. There's no way we can continue to works as we do and plan cities as we do and stem the oncoming catastrophe with any alacrity.
- Loeffelmann 5y ago
  Have carbon emissions decreased enough to actually matter in this time?
  - dleslie 5y ago
    Yes, significantly, and almost entirely a result of individuals no longer using their cars. Note these studies took place at various different times during the lockdown, and focus on different scopes of data: https://pcc.uw.edu/blog/research/how-did-covid-19-affect-our-carbon-emissions/ https://pcc.uw.edu/blog/research/how-did-covid-19-affect-our... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0797-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0797-x https://earth.stanford.edu/news/covid-lockdown-causes-record-drop-carbon-emissions-2020#gs.8054tu https://earth.stanford.edu/news/covid-lockdown-causes-record...
  - skinkestek 5y ago
    > Global CO2 emissions declined by 5.8% in 2020, or almost 2 Gt CO2 – the largest ever decline and almost five times greater than the 2009 decline that followed the global financial crisis. CO2 emissions fell further than energy demand in 2020 owing to the pandemic hitting demand for oil and coal harder than other energy sources while renewables increased. Despite the decline in 2020, global energy-related CO2 emissions remained at 31.5 Gt, which contributed to CO2 reaching its highest ever average annual concentration in the atmosphere of 412.5 parts per million in 2020 – around 50% higher than when the industrial revolution began. https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2021/co2-emissions https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2021/co2-em...

by Joeri 5y ago

ChrisRR 5y ago

We need both. We can't just ignore all individual action just because there's worse offenders. Everyone collectively doing their part will have more of an effect than sitting on their arses and blaming fossil fuels.

FeepingCreature 5y ago
I suspect the demand for everyone to do their part is harming the environmental cause by politicizing it. Instead, we should try for environmental regulation to be as unnoticeable to the individual as possible. The unwarranted fetishization of restricted living is a central part of the green movement's image problem.
- skinkestek 5y ago
  Yep. There is plenty of room for environmentalism on the conservative side (I am a conservative): - self sufficiency / independence both at the individual level and as nations - economically smart - less wasteful with resources, better for the economy Certain people - especially on my side - making this a partisan issue is something I should really want to stop.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  > unwarranted What if people can't live the exact same lifestyle in a way that stops, or even slows, or even slows the acceleration of environmental catastrophe? What if "safe for the environment" isn't just another brand that you can choose to buy if you're willing to pay the extra dollar?
  - FeepingCreature 5y ago
    > What if "safe for the environment" isn't just another brand that you can choose to buy if you're willing to pay the extra dollar? But "safe for the environment" is a brand that you can choose to buy. Every environmental damage can be offset. I'd reverse the question: what if solving global warming is something that can be achieved without outlawing anything, including SUVs, plastic garbage and wasteful lawns? Certain people perceive global warming as an opportunity to reshape society in their preferred image; (visibly) ecologically conscious, "green", friendly, local, low power, low consumption, etc. This can be seen in the discourse around technological megaengineering solutions to global warming, such as a space sunshade - usually you will find in the comments someone saying "but then we'll just keep burning fossil fuels!" Yeah, so? I thought this was about warming?
    - titzer 5y ago
      > Every environmental damage can be offset. Loss of biodiversity? Sea level change? Loss of ice sheets? You can't pay a tax somewhere and unshatter that glass. > solving global warming is something that can be achieved without outlawing anything, including SUVs, plastic garbage and wasteful lawns? Oh, not even close, not if even if there were less than 1 billion humans on Earth. None of those things is sustainable in the long run.
      - FeepingCreature 5y ago
        > Loss of biodiversity? Sea level change? Loss of ice sheets? You can't pay a tax somewhere and unshatter that glass. Sea level change and ice sheets are a result of climate change and thus can be offset with carbon offsets; they're the poster child for the concept. I don't recognize loss of biodiversity as damage. > Oh, not even close, not if even if there were less than 1 billion humans on Earth. None of those things is sustainable in the long run. Those things are negligible footnotes in the long run. And all of those things, including the plastic bags, can be run off solar. All it needs are the right incentives.

flr03 5y ago

Individuals vote and buy. Companies keep doing what they do because: 1. The law allows it 2. There is a demand for their products

zejn 5y ago

Individuals can and should reduce their direct CO2 footprint. Most of personal energy budget goes for transportation and heating and/or cooling the living spaces. Two solutions enable you to stop directly burning stuff: EVs and heatpumps. Beyond that, cap-and-trade scheme has worked to reduce SO2 emissions and it will work to reduce CO2 emissions.

jsinai 5y ago
Am EV over a fuel burning car is huge improvement, however EV’s alone are not a sustainable solution to our transport needs. There needs to be mass transit and wider adoption of cycling/walking in more towns and cities. EV’s are still burning fuel if they’re not charged using 100% renewable energy, which clearly we are not at yet, and at the end of the day they’re _still_ an inefficient means of transporting people over any distance. To reduce transportation emissions worldwide, there needs to be greater emphasis on alternative modes of transports to cars, electric or not. - Long distances should be covered by train/bus. - Medium distances by metro/bus/tram/whatever works in a given city’s geography and layout. - short distances by cycling/walking. - an EV when you need the flexibility of a car.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  The last point is “pretty damn often” at least in the US now.
NumberWangMan 5y ago
One issue with individual action, in the absence of a market incentive such as cap-and-trade or a carbon tax, is that reducing your use of power/fossil fuels reduces demand, thus ever so slightly reducing prices, which will give others licence to use more. It doesn't 100% cancel out your efforts, but it does reduce the effect. One issue with EVs is that they aren't necessarily a feasible option for a lot of households due to their cost. Putting a market incentive in place would lead to a hundred different ways of reducing our CO2 emissions from driving, not limited by the ingenuity of one person or organization. More people working from home, more carpooling, distributed co-working spaces, more use of public transportation, even shifting how we design and zone our towns and cities, are a few things I can think of. I strongly recommend that anyone who wants to take a very direct, immediate, simple action to move the USA toward having a carbon fee and dividend policy* take a look at this (or at the very least, send it to your environmentally concerned friends and family): https://citizensclimatelobby.org/senate/ https://citizensclimatelobby.org/senate/ (*a tax on carbon, where, that get returned to all citizens so as to reduce or even eliminate impact on lower income families)

spaniard89277 5y ago

You can't transition from dinosaurs to sun in a day, so you need both. And if you need both, you need individuals to make the switch too. And for individuals to make the switch, you need to allow it.

ygjb 5y ago
This argument is the problem. If we stopped producing fossil fuels right now, there would be an economic collapse, and starvation, and probably a few wars. In 50-75 years we will probably be looking back in horror at the missed opportunity to avoid the ongoing economic collapse, the massive famine, starvation, and plagues that will follow on COVID, and the continuous wars as refugees flood from the front lines of climate collapse to places where the impacts aren't as severe and immediate.
- maccard 5y ago
  I went to school in the 90s and we were learning about climate change then. The argument of "we can't stop now" seemed good enough 25 years ago, but we've still not actually made any progress towards making it easier to stop. We need to do that right now.

skinkestek 5y ago

> Individual action won’t solve this problem. Not sure if we agree or not. To make it clear, what I write is not about individual actions but about smart legislation and massive campaigns: - mandate teaching practical repair work instead of todays "feel good"/"feel bad" subjects environmental studies in school - a giant hike on import taxes on fast fashion and cheap "use once" gadgets and electronics - gradually increase mandatory warranties until selling low quality is a losing prospect - make "news anchors" - at least in public tv stations - use more ordinary clothing, and reuse it. - do make ads and tv shows about cobolt mining - do inform the public about our unhealthy dependency on China - do make ads about the stupidity of living in wastefulness - edit: do mock "individualism" that consists of having to go to exotic places - edit: do tax food import! Urge other countries to do the same! Especially anyone who burns rainforest.

pessimizer 5y ago
"Individual action" is a euphemism for changing your lifestyle in the slightest, even if imposed from outside through tariffs/taxes or other regulation. What people want is their exact same lifestyle, except eveything bad has been spraypainted green. It's understandable, I want my wishes to turn things into gold. Action against companies is an extension of action against consumption, not an alternative.
- skinkestek 5y ago
  I'd say many are ready for individual action but are discouraged on a daily basis especially by - hypocritical politicians and environmentalists traveling the world on first class/private jets - negativity like yours and the one I originally answered - misinformation/information overload/infighting: whatever good someone tries to do someone will pop up to explain why it is bad: nuclear, organic, frugality, you name it, someone will magically pop up to tell you how worthless exactly your contribution is. I say: almost every effort is worthwhile as long as one doesn't actively destroy. At least spread enthusiasm and knowledge.

shellfishgene 5y ago

> which means switching energy sources, which is not something individuals have much influence on I'm not sure how it is in the US or around the world, but in Germany switching to 100% renewable energy for your home takes about 10 minutes online, by changing contract or company. Sure - if everyone did it there would not be enough supply, but apparently the majority does not despite being able to.

skinkestek 5y ago
Good! I'll just mention though that I think there is some double dipping going on here: "Every" Norwegian seems to be happily thinking that they are using green hydropower, while at the same time the green certificates are sold to Germany. Not saying this to discourage you guys, what you do makes green power more viable. Edit: The problem is Norwegians are living happy lives thinking they aren't contributing from power at least and nobody is telling. I only want to help lit a fire under the feet of Norwegians :-) And personally I could accept a small extra fee to get certified nuclear power ;-) Edit 2: feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

tonyedgecombe 5y ago

>Individual action won’t solve this problem. Although from an individuals perspective it makes sense to change on your own terms rather than waiting for it to be forced on you.

Dumblydorr 5y ago

Individual actions help, they aren't sufficient alone but if every citizen went vegan and didn't vacation, it would probably buy us a couple more years to transition our energy system. Every little bit helps, but I do agree industry is the low hanging and greater emitting fruit that must change first. For instance air conditioning, there are very potent greenhouse gasses in ACs, companies would do well to phase those out fully and quickly and dispose of them properly. A little government incentive there would be a massive win, much easier than telling humans not to travel.

triceratops 5y ago

> Individual action won’t solve this problem This is true. But if large portions of the electorate start living like GP, they'll have no problem with voting for carbon taxes and other measures that'll cost money. They won't be swayed by talking heads on TV shouting "environmental Marxism!".

skinkestek 5y ago
Since I am GP: I really hope I'd not fall for anything so stupid :-) That said I am also a conservative and I think I know a bit about conservatives; if one want conservatives to change as fast as possible phrase it in a way that sounds reasonable to the conservative mind: - it is economically smart on individual level - "repairing things is the traditional thing to do" and "it feels good to be in control" - "industry should look for ways to save resources to stay competitive and increase yield on investment for shareholders" (sorry, English is not my first language, if this reads as a parody it is not meant as) - "take advantage of the green wave". Competitive advantage: Point out that wealthy consumers will, on average, choose the greener product if they are otherwise equal. (Maybe poor ones will too, but we are here to sell this idea, aren't we ;-) - On a national level: we need to get independence from China - "reach individual monetary independence faster by making smart choices" Doing this instead of continuing to make a partisan issue about it should go a long way I think. That is, if getting the results is more important than "being right". People are already making money this way: just yesterday I heard a close friend explaining enthusiastically (I'll translate it on the fly from my native language as well as adding my explanation of why I think this was potent): - a US jeans company had gotten hold of "the last real loom that wasn't sent to China" (local business argument) - "hired the old operators to teach the how to use it" (traditional argument), - "picked it apart - about a million pieces - and restored it" (self sufficient etc argument) - and are now selling expensive pants - but it is real jeans (the actual sales argument)
- triceratops 5y ago
  There are different ways to reach different sections of the electorate, and we should use all of them. I'm in total agreement with you that those are the talking points to use with people on the conservative side of the political spectrum. > Doing this instead of continuing to make a partisan issue Unfortunately, making it (doesn't matter what "it" is) a partisan issue has been shown to work, over and over and over. It's depressingly predictable at this point. People go into all sorts of mental contortions and doublethink to explain why the stance "their" side has taken is the "right" one. People and industries who have more to lose from a greener economy have no hesitation in employing these tactics to stall or block change, and influence people.

dleslie 5y ago

> Individual action won’t solve this problem. We need to leave the fossil fuels in the ground, which means switching energy sources, which is not something individuals have much influence on. The covid shutdown should have put this myth to bed forever. Hundreds of millions stuck at home and no longer commuting took a massive dent out of carbon emissions and sent shock waves through the oil industry. Individual action can save the planet; we have to be drops in the flood. > I’m not sure we need to switch lifestyles that much, but we will need to radically change energy production. There's no way we can continue to works as we do and plan cities as we do and stem the oncoming catastrophe with any alacrity.

Loeffelmann 5y ago
Have carbon emissions decreased enough to actually matter in this time?
- dleslie 5y ago
  Yes, significantly, and almost entirely a result of individuals no longer using their cars. Note these studies took place at various different times during the lockdown, and focus on different scopes of data: https://pcc.uw.edu/blog/research/how-did-covid-19-affect-our-carbon-emissions/ https://pcc.uw.edu/blog/research/how-did-covid-19-affect-our... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0797-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0797-x https://earth.stanford.edu/news/covid-lockdown-causes-record-drop-carbon-emissions-2020#gs.8054tu https://earth.stanford.edu/news/covid-lockdown-causes-record...
- skinkestek 5y ago
  > Global CO2 emissions declined by 5.8% in 2020, or almost 2 Gt CO2 – the largest ever decline and almost five times greater than the 2009 decline that followed the global financial crisis. CO2 emissions fell further than energy demand in 2020 owing to the pandemic hitting demand for oil and coal harder than other energy sources while renewables increased. Despite the decline in 2020, global energy-related CO2 emissions remained at 31.5 Gt, which contributed to CO2 reaching its highest ever average annual concentration in the atmosphere of 412.5 parts per million in 2020 – around 50% higher than when the industrial revolution began. https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2021/co2-emissions https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2021/co2-em...