Corona virus might help with climate change

[Lou]

So people are driving less. Factories are shutting down. Air travel is down.

These are all good things for the planet,

There's an unlikely beneficiary of coronavirus: The planet | CNN

Factories were shuttered and streets were cleared across China's Hubei province as authorities ordered residents to stay home to stop the spread of the coronavirus. It seems the lockdown had an unintended benefit -- blue skies.

www.cnn.com

The Coronavirus and Carbon Emissions (Published 2020)

Also this week, a contentious idea: tweaking ocean ecosystems

www.nytimes.com

 

[David3]

Very true! On the other hand, unemployed people are unlikely to prioritize environmental protection.
.

 

[Mostly Random Dude]

Very true! On the other hand, unemployed people are unlikely to prioritize environmental protection.

On the third hand (I work with economists a lot), dead people do not pollute and make good fertilizer!

 

[David3]

On the third hand (I work with economists a lot), dead people do not pollute and make good fertilizer!

True, but this isn’t the plan we should hope for.

 

[Bob Who]

I recall seeing a Nova program broadcast in about 2006 that presented the theory some types of pollution in the atmosphere act as a mirror reflecting some of the sun's energy and when most aircraft in the US were grounded in the days after the Sept 11 attacks, thus reducing these emissions and allowing more sunlight to penetrate, that the avg temp over the US increased by about 1 degree. This is how I remember it anyway, I could have some details wrong .

At the time I thought it was plausible and interesting, but I don't know if it's been seriuosly researched, validated or disproven. Anyone know?

 

[Second Summer]

On the third hand (I work with economists a lot), dead people do not pollute and make good fertilizer!

That number will probably be replaced by an unusual baby boom starting around 9 months from now. Although that might again be tempered by an equally unusual peak in divorces and domestic murders.

 

[shyvas]

That number will probably be replaced by an unusual baby boom starting around 9 months from now. Although that might again be tempered by an equally unusual peak in divorces and domestic murders.

Totally agree.

 

[No Longer Active]

The beginning of the fall of capitalism too?

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-and-they-were-already-crazy-and-scary-before

 

[Lou]

ooops

 

[Lou]

I recall seeing a Nova program broadcast in about 2006 that presented the theory some types of pollution in the atmosphere act as a mirror reflecting some of the sun's energy and when most aircraft in the US were grounded in the days after the Sept 11 attacks, thus reducing these emissions and allowing more sunlight to penetrate, that the avg temp over the US increased by about 1 degree. This is how I remember it anyway, I could have some details wrong .

At the time I thought it was plausible and interesting, but I don't know if it's been seriuosly researched, validated or disproven. Anyone know?

Empty skies after 9/11 set the stage for an unlikely climate change experiment - National | Globalnews.ca

Thousands of jets leave contrails over North America every day. They affect climate, but figuring out how was one of the more unlikely legacies of 9/11.

globalnews.ca

Well, it has been researched but I don't think it can really be validated. how would a Scientist replicate the experiment?

I've never thought of contrails as air pollution. But I guess they are. They are mostly water vapor. Like clouds. But just like clouds they reflect energy back out in the daytime and cause a cooling effect in the day. And just like on a cloudy night, the water vapor is like a blanket and traps heat in our atmosphere. Warming the planed at night. It moderates the temperatures. Less hot in the day. Less cold at night.

But planes also produce GHG. The percentage of GHG they produce is just 2 or 3% of the total GHG produced each year. However, cars keep getting more efficient. Their percentage keeps dropping. And with the magic of math, even if you don't increase the number of planes, their percentage will increase. Also, there are all kinds of technology that increase fuel efficiency and decrease GHG. But airplane are not the recipients of much of this technology.

 

[Bob Who]

Thanks Lou, for the memory jog.

While it may not be a true experiment, we may find out soon...

 

[Lou]

just a little relevant, but like where were you when the Loma Linda earthquake hit, I have a good 9/11 story.

Although I used to get up to NPR every morning. I did hear just a bit of the news before jumping in the shower. I'm not sure what part of the story I heard but for some reason I thought they were talking about a forest fire.

Anyway, as I recall i was rushing to get to work - maybe an hour early. Something that i had left undone the day before.

Back then I worked in Foster City. It's a little artificial island in the SF Bay. And although planes were prohibited to fly directly over Foster City on their way to SFO, they did all the time and when driving along the Bay you could normally see 8 or 10 planes at once.

But as I hurried to work, something in my brain kicked in and i realized the skies were empty. I actually pulled over and just stared out into the bay.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

I recall seeing a Nova program broadcast in about 2006 that presented the theory some types of pollution in the atmosphere act as a mirror reflecting some of the sun's energy and when most aircraft in the US were grounded in the days after the Sept 11 attacks, thus reducing these emissions and allowing more sunlight to penetrate, that the avg temp over the US increased by about 1 degree. This is how I remember it anyway, I could have some details wrong .

At the time I thought it was plausible and interesting, but I don't know if it's been seriuosly researched, validated or disproven. Anyone know?

This is true, and it means that as we move away from fossil fuels global warming may slightly increase (as reflective dust etc falls out of the atmosphere), I think it's by a fraction of a degree. However long term moving away from fossil fuels of course leads to less warming as everyone knows. But anyone who still talks about 1.5C as a realistic max goal is probably not living in reality and I think this is part of the reason. I've heard this multiple times. Not 100% sure, but fairly confident.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

How weird Lou. I got out of bed, and looked at the TV, and my friend said "the world trade centre is on fire". I didn't know what caused the fire, so I went into the shower. It was only when the second plane hit - possibly live on TV or close to it - that in a few seconds I realized it was definately terrorism. I was in Toronto on holiday.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Empty skies after 9/11 set the stage for an unlikely climate change experiment - National | Globalnews.ca

Thousands of jets leave contrails over North America every day. They affect climate, but figuring out how was one of the more unlikely legacies of 9/11.

globalnews.ca

Well, it has been researched but I don't think it can really be validated. how would a Scientist replicate the experiment?

I've never thought of contrails as air pollution. But I guess they are. They are mostly water vapor. Like clouds. But just like clouds they reflect energy back out in the daytime and cause a cooling effect in the day. And just like on a cloudy night, the water vapor is like a blanket and traps heat in our atmosphere. Warming the planed at night. It moderates the temperatures. Less hot in the day. Less cold at night.

But planes also produce GHG. The percentage of GHG they produce is just 2 or 3% of the total GHG produced each year. However, cars keep getting more efficient. Their percentage keeps dropping. And with the magic of math, even if you don't increase the number of planes, their percentage will increase. Also, there are all kinds of technology that increase fuel efficiency and decrease GHG. But airplane are not the recipients of much of this technology.

This is the best article I've seen on this topic:
https://www.sailtothecop.com/blog/aviation-more-than-10-of-emissions

The key point is that airlines do produce 2-3% of CO2 but with the other warming effects it's more like 5% of total global warming for now. This % will increase over time because electric planes or some other alternative is so far off.

The other point I would make it that the reason it's 5% is because most people in the world don't fly. You only need to take one long haul flight in a year and it becomes maybe 20% or 30% or 50%.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

The beginning of the fall of capitalism too?

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-and-they-were-already-crazy-and-scary-before

It is interesting how everyone has abandoned capitalist principles in this scenario. Buying toilet rolls to sell at a profit later is just capitalism. Right wing government handing out money left right and centre. Companies shutting down their factories for health reasons.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Very true! On the other hand, unemployed people are unlikely to prioritize environmental protection.
.

Climate change is tightly linked to economic growth (- for now. This can be changed if we get rid of fossil fuels). The more economic growth, the more climate change. At the moment, I'd argue given the urgency on climate change, a recession is a good thing even after allowing for all the huge suffering and troubles and affects on some people.

An unemployed person who doesn't care about the environment has a lower footprint that a die-hard environmentalist if the latter earns a high salary and spends it all.

One of the things we should do for climate change is deliberately spend less money. Just buy the things we really want or really need only.

 

[Lou]

Climate change is tightly linked to economic growth (- for now. This can be changed if we get rid of fossil fuels). The more economic growth, the more climate change. At the moment, I'd argue given the urgency on climate change, a recession is a good thing even after allowing for all the huge suffering and troubles and affects on some people.

An unemployed person who doesn't care about the environment has a lower footprint that a die-hard environmentalist if the latter earns a high salary and spends it all.

One of the things we should do for climate change is deliberately spend less money. Just buy the things we really want or really need only.

Good points but I can think right off the top of my head several exceptions.

What if the die-hard environmentalist with the high salary

• Choose not to have children - but adopts (Mia farrow, Angelina)
• solarize their house (Kate Blanchet)
• buy an electric car (Brad Pitt)
• go vegan (moby)
• Make a speech about climate change that is heard by millions (Obama)
• Make a speech about veganism that is heard by millions (Joaquin)
• Make a movie about climate change (Leonardo)

And that is just off the top of my head.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

If we consider the impact on others (rather than restrict it to personal footprint) then rich people, especially famous one, may have had a net positive impact on the world in some cases.

I don't consider children in a person's individual footprint, but if you did, yes that might change what I said or at least complicate it.

However, if we consider their own personal footprint all of the people you mention will have a higher footprint than an unemployed person.

Because everything you can spend money on, even solar panels, has a footprint in its production.

How I can spend a million dollars per year and keep my footprint in greenhouse gases lower than the world average? It's difficult if not impossible. Even if you gave half to charity, and half to solar panels, and went to live in the forest, the operating costs of the charity and the production of the solar panels, would still give you a personal footprint above the average by far.

If you're rich you consume more than your fair share of the earth's fossil fuels, water, land etc by default.

If you are a billionaire, and all you do is live your live by spending your money on what you fancy, yachts and so on, your emissions are sufficient to have killed people.

If you're super rich, and don't give to charity or even have solar panels or an electric car, then I think you are basically immoral or lacking in knowledge. I would never be friends with such a person if they weren't willing to change.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Unfortunately, coronavirus has cancelled the next COP, the conference on global warming. This crisis, like any, pulls the government attention on to the immediate and defers action. So that is a part of the bad side of coronavirus, environmentally speaking.