Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 279 posts

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#111

Post by FooHentai »

marstall wrote: post #64

would this be expected to have a (temporary) detectable impact on atmospheric carbon concentration (ie ppm)?

Yes, in a slight slowing of the rate at which it is increasing.

Hard to attribute with confidence since it's a global figure based on pooled local measurements, but so long as you agree that human-caused release of co2 contributes to increasing atmospheric co2 levels, the reduction is a safe assumption.

The depressing part is the reduction needs to be 10x greater, and permanent, and global, for atmospheric co2 to halt it's increase and start dropping.

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#112

Post by ndiscussion »

kristopolous wrote: post #71
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a lot of people it was their only alone time.

It really says something. Roads have long served as our public space but we've managed to convert it into the private. I don't mean materially private, I know we're fishbowls on wheels, but culturally private, as in people often refer to it as such. It's one of the only times most people are disconnected from internet/work-tech because there is substantial risk of life and limb if they engaged (I know people have mad…

What if we didn't crowd ourselves into cesspools of humanity ie cities?

I'm being a bit facetious, but ultimately, this lack of privacy is all self-inflicted.

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#113

Post by elmomle »

ggreer wrote: post #72
elmomle wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't only climate change. Ambient air pollution causes >4 million deaths per year, per the WHO: https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_1

Almost all of that (3.8 million) is indoor air pollution caused by cooking: https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/topics/topic-detail...

Actually, that 3.8 million is separate from the 4.2 million caused by outdoor air pollution: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ambient-(ou...

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#114

Post by jeofken »

xur17 wrote: post #35
citilife wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it possible that Sars-cov-2 epidemic will eventually save more lives than it cost, through the long term and short term effects of decreased pollution and climate change? Climate change wont directly lead to death, we'll have to adapt, but there are models showing more food produced from climate change. Simply put, we don't know what potentially will happen. We highly suspect there are 150 thousand increase in d…

> Given 25 million have tested positive, by the prior estimates, that means a likely 250 million Americans have already gotten covid [4] Considering there are 328 million Americans, that would mean 76% of Americans have had the disease, which I believe would be sufficient for herd immunity. Given what case counts look like, I find that extremely unlikely.

A very large amount of cases are simply false positives. We have no idea how widespread the disease is, but it’s certainly less spread and deadly than feared. This has been talked about in non-mainstream news for a while, but is only recently recognised in the state and big media organisations around the western world.

Like terrorism was in the 00’s, this is proving very useful for those who want to expand their power via the state.

https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/letters-health-care-prov...

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#115

Post by fbelzile »

breakfastduck wrote: post #89
just_steve_h wrote: post #70

The biggest takeaway here for me is that we collectively achieved something previously considered impossible: by making different behavioral choices, as a species, we achieved the largest cut in CO2 emissions in 75 years. It's tragic that only the threat of a deadly disease could compel such a change, but perhaps we may find other levers to help us achieve such widespread beneficial changes in the future?

All it does it prove how fruitless the prevention of climate change is. A total shutdown of the entire world economy on an unprecedented scale still doesn't track enough to prevent climate change. If that isn't a clear indicator of how severe the situation is then I don't know what else is.

I don't think it's fruitless, but it shows how much we'll need to rely on clean technology rather than a change in human behaviour to curb climate change.

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#116

Post by blake1 »

breakfastduck wrote: post #89
just_steve_h wrote: post #70

The biggest takeaway here for me is that we collectively achieved something previously considered impossible: by making different behavioral choices, as a species, we achieved the largest cut in CO2 emissions in 75 years. It's tragic that only the threat of a deadly disease could compel such a change, but perhaps we may find other levers to help us achieve such widespread beneficial changes in the future?

All it does it prove how fruitless the prevention of climate change is. A total shutdown of the entire world economy on an unprecedented scale still doesn't track enough to prevent climate change. If that isn't a clear indicator of how severe the situation is then I don't know what else is.

I disagree with a lot of this, except the conclusion.

The economy never came close to a “total shutdown.” In most places, the overwhelming majority of jobs were classified as essential—maybe 2/3rds—even while certain sectors did shut down. You can look at various stats, but a very simple one is the output gap, estimated to be 6%, which is potential GDP minus actual. This is a fair proxy for how shut down the economy was. The severe shutdowns were relatively brief.

Mostly, we massively changed the mix of activities we engage in, substituting relatively cleaner ones for more polluting ones. Maybe you purchased more manufactured goods and used more electricity, while driving less. A different conclusion from yours is that simple behavior changes—like more telework—can have significant impacts on emissions.

It proves that we can cut emissions without living a prehistoric lifestyle. And given that renewable energy sources are cheaper than polluting ones, this gives me reason to be optimistic.

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#117

Post by kube-system »

ggreer wrote: post #72
elmomle wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't only climate change. Ambient air pollution causes >4 million deaths per year, per the WHO: https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_1

Almost all of that (3.8 million) is indoor air pollution caused by cooking: https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/topics/topic-detail...

For what it's worth, those cooking indoors with solid fuel are might also be less likely to be cooking anything...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_security_during_the_COVID...

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#118

Post by stretchcat »

nostrademons wrote: post #97
breakfastduck wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All it does it prove how fruitless the prevention of climate change is. A total shutdown of the entire world economy on an unprecedented scale still doesn't track enough to prevent climate change. If that isn't a clear indicator of how severe the situation is then I don't know what else is.

Unpopular prediction: we're going to solve global warming by the 22nd century, but we're going to "solve" it with nuclear winter and the destruction of 80-90% of humanity. Once we're down to a billion people or so and most of what passes for advanced civilization has been destroyed, carbon emissions and warming won't be a problem.

Nuclear winter seems unlikely to me, and from what I understand I'm not alone. Cities are no longer prone to huge firestorms like they once were. Furthermore most nuclear strikes would probably be airbursts to maximize blast effects, but that means less material being thrown into the atmosphere. If the attack were calculated to cause maximum fallout instead, airbursts of salted bombs might be used, which would poison huge areas of land but would not particularly contribute to a nuclear winter.

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#119

Post by jessaustin »

hammock wrote: post #101
nostrademons wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unpopular prediction: we're going to solve global warming by the 22nd century, but we're going to "solve" it with nuclear winter and the destruction of 80-90% of humanity. Once we're down to a billion people or so and most of what passes for advanced civilization has been destroyed, carbon emissions and warming won't be a problem.

Bill Gates wants to test an artificial nuclear winter... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7350713/Bill...

Albedo modification is the obvious response to the situation. Of course testing should start small, but the idea that 2 kg of material in one location could lead to a runaway deep-freeze earth situation is not plausible. Those global warming enthusiasts who oppose this research seem more interested in political implications than in actually reducing warming.

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#120

Post by exporectomy »

marstall wrote: post #64

would this be expected to have a (temporary) detectable impact on atmospheric carbon concentration (ie ppm)?

Certainly not an obvious impact, at least not yet, according to this graph: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Post reply on HN