[HN Gopher] Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall...
___________________________________________________________________
Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII
Author : LinuxBender
Score : 118 points
Date : 2021-01-22 18:26 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| Recessions/Depressions have really been the only significant
| reduction in GHG emissions in recent history, the paper treaties
| have been pretty insignificant.
|
| I won't say that the massive progress in alternative energy
| infrastructure buildout isn't blunting it as well, and the
| promise of EVs for alleviating transportation emissions, but the
| Mortgage Recession and the COVID recession have been the
| historically largest reductions emissions in recent history.
|
| I have good faith that alt energy + EV will result in a massive
| improvement, but I wonder if it will be enough.
|
| I guess what I'm saying is ... financial deck chair rearrangers,
| let's cook us up a steady diet of structural financial
| malfeasance.
| justinzollars wrote:
| I wonder if the California wildfires were factored into this? The
| state was on fire for 3 months.
| frongpik wrote:
| Well, I'd welcome the idea of once a year total shutdown for a
| couple weeks: no cars, no economic activity, except maybe
| hospitals and other infra. That would be a sort of worldwide
| retreat. I still remember how clean the air felt the first time
| the us did a hard shutdown (empty roads, people were scared). I'm
| sure the capitalists will hate the idea to halt the factory for 2
| out of 52 weeks.
| olivermarks wrote:
| The headline is annoying to me, I feel it should read '2020
| emissions in biggest fall since WWII due to pandemic'.
|
| The prefix 'climate change' is redundant, I wish the BBC could
| get back to being more objective.
| fred_is_fred wrote:
| You find the prefix "Climate Change:" not objective? It is
| setting the context for the article. Like "COVID-19: Scientists
| work on a vaccine".
| youeseh wrote:
| Sounds like de-centralized power generation, maximizing remote
| work, and delivery vehicles powered by electricity and hydrogen
| is the way forward.
| r00fus wrote:
| Yeah, everything except the hydrogen part sounds like a good
| move.
| ip26 wrote:
| Maybe not for delivery vehicles, but a combo of batteries
| plus green hydrogen fuel cell might enable long haul
| airplanes. Hybrids, if you will.
| gecko wrote:
| Hydrogen _as part_ is totally reasonable. It gives us
| hydrocarbon density without us needing to _add_ to the CO2 in
| the atmosphere. The important thing to remember when
| discussing it is that it 's an energy _storage_ medium, not
| an energy _generation_ medium. Most of the time I get
| irritated is when people treat hydrogen as the latter. But if
| our culture is just too damn wedded to cars for now, _and_
| battery tech just isn 't there yet, then using hydrogen as a
| stopgap--provided the hydrogen is made from renewable energy
| --seems fine to me.
| ozborn wrote:
| The problem is that hydrogen is more likely to be made with
| steam-methane reforming, not electrolysis using clean
| energy sources.
|
| It is also difficult to store, so I suspect the hydrogen
| ship has sailed.
| gecko wrote:
| Yep, and that's a very legitimate concern and why I'm
| certainly not bullish about hydrogen. I just don't want
| to reflexively throw it out; sufficient energy production
| from clean sources would make electrolysis quite
| reasonable, even if it's not ideal, and there are
| approaches to handling the storage, too, if that ends up
| being the last bit. I _suspect_ , based on current trends
| and sciences, that we'll see better batteries instead,
| but I don't see harm in continuing to look at hydrogen
| for now.
| DennisP wrote:
| A company in Norway thinks it can get electrolysis to
| price parity with steam-methane reforming by 2025, and
| maybe cheaper after that.
|
| https://www.rechargenews.com/transition/nel-to-slash-
| cost-of...
| ggreer wrote:
| Hydrogen vehicles will never become popular. There are
| several reasons for this:
|
| - To be carbon-neutral, the hydrogen must come from
| splitting water.[1] Currently hydrogen comes from steam
| reforming of methane (which releases lots of carbon).[2]
|
| - Hydrogen is a very pernicious molecule. It will slowly
| leak through metal and weaken it.[3]
|
| - Hydrogen vehicles must be refueled at special fueling
| stations. Electric vehicles can be charged anywhere there
| is electricity (such as at home).
|
| - Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are more expensive than
| battery electric vehicles. Toyota sells the Mirai for
| $57,500 and loses money on each one.
|
| - Storage and transportation of hydrogen is very difficult.
| It must either be stored in gaseous form at very high
| pressure, or in liquid form at 20 degrees above absolute
| zero. Current vehicles use high pressure tanks, which also
| require high pressure pumps. Many hydrogen stations can
| only provide 5,000psi pumps, which means you'll only get
| half a tank (and half of your expected range).[4]
|
| - Hydrogen is more flammable than gasoline (it will ignite
| in a much wider range of mixtures with oxygen).[5] Unlike
| gasoline, the flame is invisible in daytime. Unlike
| gasoline, hydrogen is invisible and has no smell, making
| leaks undetectable without special equipment. If an odorant
| is added to the hydrogen, it will likely damage the fuel
| cell.
|
| - Hydrogen is more expensive than gasoline and far more
| expensive than electricity. Even with subsidies, refilling
| a Toyota Mirai costs over $80.[4] That gives you just over
| 300 miles of range. My Tesla Model 3 has the same range and
| a full charge costs me $6 at home. Supercharging is also
| cheaper, at around $25.
|
| - Batteries got cheap faster than anyone predicted (except
| Tesla). In 2015, a study looked at past estimates of
| battery prices versus observed prices. They found that
| analysts were consistently pessimistic about cost
| reductions. Correcting for this, they noted that cost per
| kWh, "...could reach $200 by 2020." Actual cost in 2020 was
| $123.[6]
|
| Given all of these disadvantages, I don't see how hydrogen
| vehicles could be considered reasonable. The economics,
| physics, safety, and convenience simply don't work out.
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_splitting
|
| 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming
|
| 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement
|
| 4. https://www.cars.com/articles/fill-er-up-refueling-
| the-2016-...
|
| 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_safety
|
| 6. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/04/will-falling-
| battery-...
| letsgoyeti wrote:
| I think most hydrogen proponents are pushing for it to
| replace hydrocarbons for shipping, planes, and seasonal
| energy storage, not cars.
|
| There's not a lot of other great options today if we want
| to decarbonize those sectors because of the energy
| density required.
| tryptophan wrote:
| IMO ammonia makes more sense than hydrogen.
|
| It doesn't cause metals to become brittle. Its relatively
| stable. It doesn't require as low temperature or as high
| pressure to liquidize. It also stores ~50% more hydrogen
| per volume, as each ammonia has 3 hydrogen, unlike
| elemental hydrogen with just 2.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| It's also highly toxic and a leak in the wrong place
| could kill thousands of people.
| r00fus wrote:
| And hydrogen substrate isn't similar?
| philipkglass wrote:
| Hydrogen is not toxic by inhalation, but it's a much
| worse explosion/fire risk.
|
| Hydrogen is flammable when mixed with air between 4% and
| 75%, and it takes a minimum energy of 0.016 millijoules
| to ignite. Ammonia is flammable between 15% and 28% and
| takes 680 millijoules to ignite. It takes much more
| energy to ignite ammonia and there's a much narrower
| range of mixtures with air where it can support
| combustion.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammability_limit#Examples
| evgen wrote:
| But we have handled ammonia on an industrial scale for
| more than a century and are really good at it. Any safety
| concerns about ammonia are ridiculous when compared with
| some of the other substances we handle and live around on
| a daily basis.
| bluGill wrote:
| A a John Deere employee I can tell you that several very
| much wanted products have failed to be developed because
| someone put their safety black-hat on and came up with a
| to abuse that product the release ammonia into the air.
| Once an evil person figures out how to control our system
| it is trivial for them to figure out many terrorist
| attacks involving ammonia releases.
|
| Yes the world deals with ammonia all the time. However we
| have special training for anyone who handles it. Even the
| most caution to the wind types wear full respirators and
| thick gloves when handling it.
|
| When you buy ammonia at walmart what you get is 1%
| ammonia, 99% water. Then you are instructed to dilute it
| with more water 16:1, Even at that ratio it is nasty
| enough that those who use it have windows open.
| jessaustin wrote:
| Please be specific. Liquid anhydrous ammonia is a common
| fertilizer. John Deere still sells e.g. the 2430 and the
| 2510. How did the hypothetical "very much wanted"
| products differ from those applicators? Are we talking
| about a handheld model? (That might have been a bad
| idea!) One suspects the hypothetical "evil persons" whose
| threat delayed product development were more interested
| in cooking meth than in terrorist attacks...
| jackdeansmith wrote:
| Why de-centralized power generation? I was under the impression
| that the electrical distribution system is very efficient in
| the US and economies of scale make large scale renewables much
| cheaper.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| For me, I just like the idea of self-reliance and being able
| to function in the event of an issue with the grid. I've
| unfortunately experienced weather events that have led to 2
| week outages of power, for example. Fossil fuels provide that
| security and benefit to some degree, and also have the added
| bonus of transportability. Yes it is not self-reliance in the
| sense that you still depend on a supply chain to produce
| those fuels. But it is easy to store a lot of those fuels for
| an extended period of time. It's not really practical to do
| so for electricity, however. A Tesla Powerwall is much much
| more expensive than a tank, and only stores 13.5 kWh.
| jackdeansmith wrote:
| I dig the idea of self reliance and preparedness, but like
| you pointed out, fossil fuels and small generators solve
| the problem really well. In most places in the US, the grid
| is pretty reliable so optimizing the system for those
| handful of days/year doesn't seem prudent. Granted, some
| places (looking at you California) have a lot of work to do
| on reliability.
| snoshy wrote:
| Electrical distribution in the US is actually aging quite
| badly and is in deep need of replacement of large parts of
| it. Inefficiency isn't entirely the problem, although many
| (including me) would argue that it isn't as efficient as it
| could be. DC power transmission at high voltages is now
| feasible due to new technologies, and it is more efficient as
| well as easier to step up/down. At large scale, even such
| seemingly small losses do start to add up and matter.
|
| Decentralization brings an obvious benefit - if power is
| consumed near generation, you need less infrastructure to
| distribute it, thereby lowering costs. Once we start adding
| large numbers of EVs charging at home, our energy consumption
| will tilt more and more towards the home, making generation
| and consumption on the spot much more efficient and useful.
|
| Another benefit of decentralization is grid resilience.
| Removing single points of failure by distributing them means
| that large scale power outages (while already infrequent)
| would become less frequent.
| cobookman wrote:
| Decentralization is also in the National Security interest.
| Makes it much harder for an adversary to take down large
| swaths of the US Grid.
| snoshy wrote:
| This I'm not so sure about. It will certainly be
| different, but it's still an open question whether it
| will be easier to secure from a national security
| standpoint.
|
| There's the physical security aspect of this, which is as
| you say, hard to take down when it's decentralized.
| However, as power generation gets more distributed, we'll
| naturally start seeing more (if not most) of these pieces
| of equipment be controlled over networks (private or
| public), and securing distributed infrastructure from a
| software standpoint is still a hard problem.
|
| Just look at the state of IoT security today. It's quite
| bad, and that's not even realistically including nation
| state attackers in the threat model. I don't expect this
| to go well with a decentralized grid, at least not for a
| while initially.
| cobookman wrote:
| I'm not convinced that it needs to be internet
| controlled. Hopefully it uses protocols like BLE or
| Zigbee requiring proximity. That way such an attack would
| require being physically near the device.
| jackdeansmith wrote:
| 100% agree about grid modernization and resilience being
| high priorities, but as I pointed out in another comment,
| the economies of scale for renewables are really really
| massive (utility scale solar is about half the unit cost of
| residential and commercial rooftop solar). Transmitting
| power long distance also partially solves intermittence
| problems with renewables by allowing overcapacity in one
| region to power extra demand in another. A bunch of good
| points for sure, but if I had to bet, I would guess that
| the future of our energy system involves far more long
| distance transmission and large installations.
| snoshy wrote:
| Fair point about the unit costs being drastically lower
| due to economies of scale. As with any large scale
| infrastructure, it will certainly be a mix of both local
| generation and utility scale transmitted power. The real
| question is where the balance of the two will end up.
| Either way, distributed generation at scale will be a
| unique phenomenon that hasn't been seen before, and will
| certainly result in quite a bit of disruption throughout
| the industry.
| RobRivera wrote:
| heat loss in power distribution is nontrivial
| jackdeansmith wrote:
| In the US at least, transmission loss seems to be on order
| of 5% of total energy distributed. Source: https://www.eia.
| gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3#:~:text=Th....
|
| The economies of scale seem to be much larger. For example,
| utility scale solar seems to be about half the unit cost
| compared to residential and commercial solar:
| https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/solar-installed-system-
| cost.ht...
| marstall wrote:
| would this be expected to have a (temporary) detectable impact on
| atmospheric carbon concentration (ie ppm)?
| FooHentai wrote:
| 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.
| exporectomy wrote:
| Certainly not an obvious impact, at least not yet, according to
| this graph: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
| cblconfederate wrote:
| Yeah but people already miss being stuck in traffic and their
| daily commute so it's not going to last
| kristopolous wrote:
| I've heard people actually say this. The horror, the horror.
| dd_roger wrote:
| Granted my commute is a 20 minutes walk so I don't get the
| The True American Commute Experience (TM) but working from
| home is a miserable experience as far as I'm concerned.
| Having the possibility to do it once in a while is nice
| though to make time for appointments or being done earlier to
| go out after work.
| renewiltord wrote:
| It's the "I like 4 seasons" of commuting.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| For a lot of people it was their only alone time.
| davio wrote:
| I only listen to podcasts while driving, so my "learning"
| time has been drastically reduced
| spelunker wrote:
| I noticed this problem. I read during my commute (it was
| by train don't worry), and since I've started working
| from home my reading time has absolutely tanked.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| I converted my commute time to walking time and yardwork
| time last spring through fall (too cold for walking now,
| and yardwork is now 10 minutes of shoveling snow every
| couple of weeks). I think I listened to more thanks to
| the lack of a commute. I didn't feel bad about leaving
| the house at 4:30pm (end of workday for me) and finding
| my way back home at 5:30pm or 6pm, especially since I
| knocked out a lot of household chores/tasks during the
| workday in quick 1-5 minute bursts so I was more helpful
| around the house than when I was in the office.
| renewiltord wrote:
| I used to commute on BART from El Cerrito for an hour.
| Read so many books on that ride. When I had a 10 min
| commute, book reading dropped through the floor till I
| made time again.
| jedberg wrote:
| Same here, I'm way behind on podcasts. The only time I
| listened to them was when I was driving.
| retzkek wrote:
| Why not set aside some time each day to listen? Take a
| bath, lounge on the couch/hammock, and enjoy that time
| not commuting.
| jedberg wrote:
| I have two young kids. There is no such thing as
| "lounging". :)
| ishjoh wrote:
| I've been WFH for about 5 years now and also have two
| young ones so I know the feeling :)
|
| I've found that any chore time is now also podcast time.
| So things like cleaning, laundry, or mowing the lawn I've
| always got one headphone in (the other ear is for
| listening for the kids)
| jedberg wrote:
| Yeah when I'm doing yard work my headphones do double
| duty for listening to podcasts and being earplugs. But
| that was true even before I stopped driving anywhere.
| r00fus wrote:
| Are these the same people who didn't spend enough time with
| their kids/family?
| kristopolous wrote:
| 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 made
| this work regardless, I'm talking about cultures, not
| outliers)
|
| Also this human need for privacy, if that's the reason to
| commute, is coming at the cost of literally destroying the
| planet.
|
| There has to be a healthier way to satisfy these baseline
| psychological needs. Climate collapsing death machines may
| be how humans have transported themselves for a while but
| it shouldn't be the main go-to for how they are alone with
| their thoughts
| ndiscussion wrote:
| 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.
| kieselguhr_kid wrote:
| Then we'd probably destroy our ecosystem more quickly.
| People in cities much more efficiently than rural or
| suburban people.
| supernova87a wrote:
| But this is like taking off your boots and congratulating
| yourself for losing 5 pounds.
| smileysteve wrote:
| The more apt analogy would be it's like catching a cold and
| losing 5lbs on a soup only diet.
|
| You actually lost weight, but not in a healthy way, and as soon
| as you feel better you're going to gain it, plus some.
| alexfromapex wrote:
| Don't forget about the cows eating seaweed development, that will
| be huge for the climate too
| hntrader wrote:
| To what extent has this been rolled out already?
| snakeboy wrote:
| From what I remember from previous discussions,
|
| 1. It's more expensive than standard cattle feed so it would
| need a subsidy to incentivize its use (probably a worthwhile
| investment for the Biden administration if they're serious
| about climate policy) and
|
| 2. there are some hurdles to massively scaling up the growth
| of the algae to supply the massive US cattle population.
| hntrader wrote:
| (1) is interesting. I'm a big fan of a carbon tax over
| subsidies and direct govt intervention but this seems like
| an example of something that a tax would have a hard time
| incenting. I wonder if there are other examples like that.
|
| Maybe a tax on cows but a rebate if they use this
| technology. But that seems like an easy system to game so
| maybe the direct subsidy is superior in this case.
| epistasis wrote:
| Beef is only 3% of US emissions, meat has very little to do
| with the US's climate woes.
|
| The big problem is transportation. Ideally we'd have lots more
| muxed-use walkable neighborhoods than we have. Roughly 50% of
| people want to live in walkable neighborhoods, but centralized
| planning has virtually banned this type of low-carbon living
| over the past 75 years.
| fred_is_fred wrote:
| I wonder if this or fake/lab meat will have a larger impact in
| 10 years.
| savanaly wrote:
| 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? If that's true, we
| have to entertain the theory that the virus was purposefully
| initiated by a time-traveler charged with averting climate
| catastrophe through the only means possible.
| blabus wrote:
| I've had a similar thought regarding the 2020 presidential
| election. Had Trump and his administration properly handled the
| pandemic response (or never had to handle it in the first
| place) it's quite likely he would've been re-elected. After
| having seen the events that transpired over the past month (to
| say nothing of the past four years) I can't help but wonder if
| 400,000+ lives ended up being the cost to preserve democracy in
| the US.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| I would think if you've got the technology to time-travel,
| fixing the atmosphere in your present day would be trivial.
| Same reason the plot lines of _The Terminator_ films never
| really made sense (though they were very entertaining movies).
| StreamBright wrote:
| Not really, there are very few climate related deaths.
|
| https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-deaths-from-nat...
|
| I think more people die from diabetes and covid than climate.
| JimiofEden wrote:
| There are CURRENTLY very few climate related deaths. The
| person you're responding to is wondering if more lives would
| be saved in the long run, maybe the next 1000 years.
| renewiltord wrote:
| The relative value of future deaths is interesting, right?
| To be honest you have to discount them a little because if
| you kill a guy today before he has kids, you've killed his
| kids too.
| corty wrote:
| If I refuse to mate with someone, I also killed a few
| thousand people over the next millenium. That doesn't mean
| I will loose any sleep over saying no to his proposition.
| savanaly wrote:
| When it comes to short term deaths (like could be measured
| right now or in the coming years) I think the bigger
| mechanism would be pollution which causes deaths from people
| with respiratory illnesses and such in major cities. Not so
| much in the US (although LA is a problem I think?) but
| definitely in China and India.
| elmomle wrote:
| 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
| ggreer wrote:
| 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...
| elmomle wrote:
| 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...
| kube-system wrote:
| 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_CO
| VID...
| remarkEon wrote:
| I've had this thought, but it's a thought experiment that I
| kinda don't want to go engage in. I've also been wondering if
| the death toll in the US is so high because, well, Americans
| are just really unhealthy and overweight and that increased
| morbidity in a way that was unique in the world. Non-compliance
| with stay-at-home and mask wearing obviously didn't help, but I
| can't shake the feeling that the structural problems with
| health in the US set us up for failure years (decades?) before
| the pandemic even started.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > if the death toll in the US is so high because, well,
| Americans are just really unhealthy and overweight and that
| increased morbidity
|
| But the US doesn't have a higher IFR than most European
| countries. The difference in number of dead has to do with a.
| the population differences, b. differences in proportion
| infected.
|
| The gaps between France and the US in per capita deaths, for
| instance, are not that huge.
| fasteddie31003 wrote:
| I actually love uncomfortable thought experiments. My recent
| one I've been asking my friends is how many years of the
| current lockdown would you trade with getting the virus and
| all the issues that go along with that but then being over
| the lockdown. My number is 1 more year of the current
| lockdown. My girlfriend's is 3 years.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| To be clear, you're saying you would rather have one more
| year of lockdown than get the virus? And your girlfriend
| would rather have 3 years?
|
| For me, 0 - the reason I lockdown is out concern for
| others, I am not personally worried of the impact Covid
| would have on me.
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| For my part, the reason I oppose the lockdowns is out of
| concern for others: by the time the restrictions are over
| in the EU, young people will have been prevented for
| about two years from doing all kinds of traditional
| coming of age rituals, courtship opportunities, etc. And
| if European countries isolating themselves leads to a new
| wave of nationalism and lessened cooperation with
| neighbors, it is their generation which will have to deal
| with the consequences.
|
| I am approaching middle age myself, but I don't think it
| is fair to limit the lives of people in their teens and
| twenties for a virus, the median age of death of which is
| around 80. This policy of COVID restrictions is the
| biggest betrayal of our youth since May '68.
| dnautics wrote:
| > I've also been wondering if the death toll in the US is so
| high because, well, Americans are just really unhealthy and
| overweight and that increased morbidity in a way that was
| unique in the world..
|
| Don't forget that the EU (at the moment) has a higher overall
| per-capita mortality rate than the US, and it looks like wave
| 3 is waning in both geographies. Interestingly enough,
| morbidity figures are much higher in the US, but that could
| be a self-reporting/self-testing issue, or even false
| positive rate of the tests, etc.
| citilife wrote:
| > 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 death from disease due to climate change[2]
|
| In contrast... there _are_ 135 - 270 MILLION people on the
| verge of starvation now; due to the policies around covid (or
| >2% of the worlds population).
|
| > "marching towards starvation" spiking from 135 million to 270
| million as the pandemic unfolded. He stressed that 2021 will be
| catastrophic [2]
|
| BTW these people are still getting covid too, lockdowns slowed
| the spread, didn't stop it. Most American's have already gotten
| the disease (estimates are that 10x the number of people have
| gotten it over the tests[3]). Given 25 million have tested
| positive, by the prior estimates, that means a likely 250
| million Americans have already gotten covid [4].
|
| [1] https://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatechange/en/
|
| [2] https://www.un.org/press/en/2020/ga12294.doc.htm
|
| [3] https://www.businessinsider.com/us-coronavirus-cases-
| deaths-...
|
| [4] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > but there are models showing more food produced from
| climate change.
|
| Total global food production hasn't been an issue in hunger
| in the modern era, so boosting it is immaterial in this
| context.
|
| _Moving_ it out of existing populated places that are
| already marginal and have litle export industry to purchase
| imports with, OTOH, will be disastrous, even if Russia and
| Canada get a huge boost in arable land.
| xur17 wrote:
| > 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.
| citilife wrote:
| They've been counting any flu related illness as COVID,
| hospitals also get additional funds for COVID-19
| hospitalizations. Only a handful of influenza tests have
| even been ran: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/
|
| In all likelihood, yes we are nearing heard immunity and
| we're done with the illness.
|
| Further, there's an issue with the PCR testing. Though
| there have been reports since August - October 2020,
| published in November 2020:
|
| https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346483715_External
| _...
|
| Basically, they started over amplifying the DNA and weren't
| controlling the PCR tests very well. Here's the original
| WHO warning in December 2020
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20210102051357/https://www.who.
| i...
|
| (Since... the page has been deleted, but followed later)
|
| With the official statement January 19, 2020:
|
| https://www.who.int/news/item/19-01-2021-who-information-
| not...
| throwaway2245 wrote:
| > They've been counting any flu related illness as COVID
|
| _There are no flu related illnesses:_ the 2020-21 winter
| flu season has not happened.
|
| Here are the results for the last 12 months of WHO's
| influenza monitoring (you may have to pick a country).
| They are conducting global testing at or above normal
| levels:
|
| https://apps.who.int/flumart/Default?ReportNo=1
|
| If you look closely enough at the x-axis, you might be
| able to see how much flu there is.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Herd immunity...against which variant?
| selimthegrim wrote:
| As far as Ct goes, 25-30 should do it. Even Fauci says
| >30-35 or so is dead fragments. Do you think everyone is
| doing 40?
| adventured wrote:
| > They've been counting any flu related illness as COVID
|
| What you're claiming doesn't pass any sniff test what-so-
| ever. Low tens of thousands of people die in a typical
| year from the flu (in the US). The US is seeing that many
| deaths from Covid every ten days now.
|
| There's no evidence the US is close to herd immunity.
| Deaths just hit a new daily record high two days ago.
| Daily case numbers have been raging at present high
| levels for over six weeks with zero sign of stopping
| naturally. The vaccines are clearly the only thing that's
| going to slow it during this season.
| mywittyname wrote:
| >that would mean 76% of Americans have had the disease,
| which I believe would be sufficient for herd immunity.
|
| My understanding is that it is possible to get covid-19
| multiple times. But lack of widespread testing is making it
| difficult to measure how prevalent this is.
|
| There are also two known strains of covid.
|
| There are a lot of unknowns at this point. We could be
| dealing with cyclical covid outbreaks for the next decade,
| the vaccine rollout this summer might eliminate it for
| good, or we could land somewhere between the two.
| jeofken wrote:
| 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...
| cableshaft wrote:
| If it's 250 million people that have Covid-19, we'd nearly at
| herd immunity levels already, at least for the population
| that can be exposed to the virus.
|
| The numbers should be going way, way down already, as there
| are a good number of people who aren't exposing themselves to
| the virus hardly at all (My wife and I are two of them, but
| it has to be in the millions of people that are limiting
| their exposure).
|
| Plus the US has vaccinated >17.5 million people, so subtract
| that from the population and that 250 million estimate, and
| there would only be 60 million more people who _could_ catch
| it (assuming no reinfections).
|
| The newest data I can find on this is from the CDC and
| they've estimated that through December 2020 that 83 million
| Americans have been infected[1] (and I saw something dated
| November 27 where they estimated that 53 million[2] had it,
| so 30 million new infections in December). To get to that 250
| million estimate we would have had to have 167 million new
| infections in less than a month, or more than tripled all the
| infections we had up until now. That seems very unlikely.
|
| Also their estimate is that 1 in 4.6 of Covid infections are
| being reported, not 1 in 10 like that Business Insider
| article (which is dated July 2020, looks like they revised
| the ratio since).
|
| [1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-
| updates/burd...
|
| [2] https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/covid-2020-11-27/card/vN
| ksh...
| bpodgursky wrote:
| The Sars-cov-2 epidemic might easily kill more people in the
| developing world through food and economic insecurity than it
| kills from respiratory disease (esp given how young those
| countries are).
|
| I don't think this is a particularly realistic take.
| [deleted]
| coding123 wrote:
| The pandemic reminded me of my childhood days when not everything
| is so damn crowded all the time. My personal wish is for travel
| to keep staying low, but I don't think it's going to stay low
| forever.
| just_steve_h wrote:
| 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?
| ppeetteerr wrote:
| It's wishful to say that we achieved this, or that we were
| compelled to do this. Emissions were reduced as a consequence
| of social distancing, not as a desired goal.
|
| I suspect we'll look back at 2020 as the year we generated the
| most waste from all that packaging that went into shipping
| products to individual homes.
|
| I'll remind that there are airlines booking flights to
| literally nowhere:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/19/travel/airlines-pandemic-...
| [deleted]
| sigzero wrote:
| If there was no threat, it would not have happened.
| rmk wrote:
| We did not simply make "behavioral choices". Whole swathes of
| humanity were ordered indoors! It was achieved at untold cost
| (actually, much greater than the trillions of dollars that have
| been given away already by governments) that will be paid by
| generations to come. Only people who were lucky to hold a job
| that wasn't affected made a conscious decision to cut down.
|
| I am willing to bet that come 2022 or so, emissions will
| rebound and exceed peaks as people 'catch up' on travel,
| including simply visiting near and dear ones, that they have
| missed out on.
| hcurtiss wrote:
| And watching so many small businesses in my small town close,
| that was not at all a thing I hope climate change policy
| replicates.
| rmk wrote:
| One can wish, but I know that there is huge pressure on the
| current administration to appease the left wing of the
| party. Keystone XL is canceled, and the US has rejoined the
| Paris agreement on the first day of Biden's Presidency. A
| multi-trillion dollar Green New Deal that will further
| saddle future generations with debt is looking likely at
| this point. Whether it will provide the benefits it
| purports to do is far from certain.
| huragok wrote:
| Trillions used for the GND is debt but trillions sunk
| into tax cuts for the top 1% is just good economics.
| bamboozled wrote:
| > Whole swathes of humanity were ordered indoors! It was
| achieved at untold cost
|
| Climate change has untold cost too, so what you're saying
| doesn't have much weight.
| bluGill wrote:
| Most of the people I know have no interest in the current state
| of affairs. They are just coping because death is seen as even
| worse. However they are reaching the breaking point and getting
| ready to just give up and hope they are not one of the dead (or
| a long-hauler).
|
| IF this is what it takes, then we will never get there. We need
| to do better. I don't know what better is, but it cannot mean
| travel restrictions and no ability to see friends.
| breakfastduck wrote:
| 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.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| When you're driving, there are two kinds of accidents; the
| ones that happen suddenly with no warning, and the ones where
| you realize things are going wrong but you still have some
| control over your vehicle. In the latter case, going off the
| road or being involved in a collision is still very
| unpleasant, but you can mitigate a lot of the damage as long
| as you don't panic. In many cases you can even get back on
| the road and resume your journey safely.
| Ancalagon wrote:
| Actually I think my view on climate change is more optimistic
| now. The article mentioned the majority of the carbon
| reduction wasnt actually due to reduced demand, but rather
| from lowered emissions from using renewables (and more
| specifically the closures of coal plants). This seems like
| pretty good news to me. You can continue to grow and operate
| the economy while reducing carbon emissions to levels they
| need to be at by switching everything to renewables.
| openasocket wrote:
| Meh, the effect of COVID on the economy was pretty specific.
| You've got a drop in commuters, and a lot of office space
| going empty and not using a lot of energy. But now people are
| staying home all day, so they're still using electricity,
| just in their homes and not the office. According to the
| article, the demand for electricity only dropped 2%, the 10%
| drop in power plant emissions was largely due to the
| continued transition to renewables. And while a lot of people
| stopped commuting and traveling, there was plenty of shipping
| (including a big bump in deliveries) which is a substantial
| source of emissions.
|
| I'm still optimistic. Just replacing coal with renewable
| power would put emission levels back to like the 1960s (maybe
| 1970s, trying to find that damn statistic), and that's likely
| to happen in the US in a few decades just by market forces.
| [deleted]
| nostrademons wrote:
| 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.
| exporectomy wrote:
| Doomsday predictions about climate change are very popular.
| hammock wrote:
| Bill Gates wants to test an artificial nuclear winter... ht
| tps://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7350713/Bill.
| ..
| jessaustin wrote:
| 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.
| stretchcat wrote:
| 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.
| nostrademons wrote:
| The primary targets for nukes aren't cities, they're
| other nukes. Most of these warheads are set for
| groundburst (or underground burst - I remember a bunch of
| research in the 80s about burrowing/penetrating
| warheads), because to blow up a 3-4 foot thick reinforced
| concrete silo you basically need to land right on top of
| it. That's the big fallout threat.
| stretchcat wrote:
| The nuclear winter theories I've read all involve the
| injection of soot into the stratosphere by nuclear-
| ignited firestorms. Buried nuclear blasts can dig pretty
| big holes (Sedan crater and all the other craters in the
| Nevada Test Site, which looks like the surface of the
| moon) and are certainly a huge fallout threat, but the
| claim of nuclear strikes against buried silos causing a
| nuclear winter is a new one to me.
|
| Some napkin math: the Sedan test was optimized to dig a
| big hole, was buried almost 200 meters deep, and moved
| about 11 million tons of earth, leaving a crater of 0.005
| cubic kilometers. The 1815 eruption of Mount Tambura,
| which caused a 'year without summer', ejected 160-213
| cubic kilometers of material into the stratosphere,
| something like 32 thousand times as much as the Sedan
| blast. I'm guessing each strike against a nuclear silo
| would probably create craters a fraction the size of
| Sedan.
| missedthecue wrote:
| Do you realize how cheap sea walls are? The Dutch were
| building them 800 years ago with medieval technology and
| resources.
| pasquinelli wrote:
| we haven't had a total shutdown of the entire world economy.
| that would imply no one's making anything or buying anything.
| as far as what we _need_ , we're still producing more than
| enough. we could cut more than we have and still have ample.
| no one would be getting rich though. so there it is, the
| driver of climate change from the beginning remains the
| driver of climate change now.
| fbelzile wrote:
| 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.
| joseph_grobbles wrote:
| "A total shutdown of the entire world economy"
|
| GDP has barely taken a hit the world over. Trade is virtually
| unchanged. Hell, some indicators went positive though the
| pandemic.
|
| I don't really think there was a "shutdown". Passenger car
| miles might have gone down, but I suspect deliveries and
| cargo went way up.
| blake1 wrote:
| 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.
| epistasis wrote:
| > A total shutdown of the entire world economy on an
| unprecedented scale
|
| Where did that happen? US GDP is down a few percent, yet
| emissions plummeted far far further.
| mrtweetyhack wrote:
| all thanks to Covid-19. Do your thang Covid-2021
| jedberg wrote:
| And personal savings are way up. But it's unlikely either of
| these trends will hold after 2021.
| badRNG wrote:
| Source? Anecdotally most folks I know have had to burn through
| their savings after living off of unemployment or going through
| underemployment this past year.
| flatline wrote:
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/246268/personal-
| savings-...
| airza wrote:
| when your disposable income is zero, doesn't that drive the
| statistics way out of wack?
| SuoDuanDao wrote:
| The poorest X% not showing up in any statistics used for
| policy making is probably a longstanding problem... and
| it's probably hard to estimate by how much X has changed
| over the past year.
| flatline wrote:
| I do not know whether it accounts for a negative savings
| rate, but the graph does show that people with disposable
| income were saving more this past year during the
| pandemic, which means they were spending less on consumer
| goods. There were probably two driving factors behind
| this: fear of economic instability due to the pandemic,
| and a lack of availability of paid activities due to the
| same. Presumably, consumer spending will rise again, as
| will travel and hence fossil fuel consumption per the
| original post.
| francisofascii wrote:
| A recent episode of NPR: The Indicator covered this. "real
| disposable income per capita in the U.S. has gone up by about
| 6 percent year-to-date from last year. Right now, it's on
| track to reach the fastest rate of growth since 1984."
| Basically the super high savings rates by people who stayed
| employed and didn't vacation, go to restaurants, drive, etc.
| outweigh those getting hammered by unemployment. Also the
| stimulus checks were given to everyone.
| https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510325/the-indicator-from-
| plane...
| kube-system wrote:
| For every 3 people that lost their jobs in the peak of
| unemployment there's 17 people who still had their jobs and
| most of them got a couple of stimulus checks. The pandemic
| has increased inequality.
| polka_haunts_us wrote:
| Anecdotally as someone in a family all of whom are thriving
| financially during the pandemic, here are possible reasons it
| could be true.
|
| * My student loan payments are frozen, I believe the total
| balance of student loans that are frozen is something like
| 85% country wide.
|
| * People working remotely = low transit expenses.
|
| * No live events = low entertainment expenses.
|
| * Raging pandemic = low travel expenses.
|
| * Investment = stock market has been very profitable since
| march. I made 100% last year just on random long term
| investment.
|
| Basically, if you have a job that was exceeding the minimum
| threshold of living expenses, any of the extraneous things
| you were spending money on, other than eating out maybe, have
| evaporated.
|
| Obviously there is a notable segment of the population that
| is not doing well, can barely if at all cover day to day
| expenses, and unemployment has gone up, but that segment
| isn't necessarily a majority.
|
| That's all just speculation though, I'm not claiming parent
| is correct.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| > stock market has been very profitable since march. I made
| 100% last year just on random long term investment.
|
| Hmm. All this makes me wonder if the country opening back
| up is going to cause the market to flatten out for a bit as
| people have less money and incentive to invest. Food for
| thought.
| jedimastert wrote:
| Intuition says that people who have to choose between
| investing and other things aren't the maority of
| investors.
|
| I'm think the economy will liven up a fair bit once
| people are out and about spending again, possibly even
| over-correcting.
| ishjoh wrote:
| I could also see it flattening due to people having more
| options again. The majority of the companies that are
| listed in the public markets are businesses that didn't
| have to close. Nation wide retailers, tech companies, oil
| and gas, all the things that were deemed essential or
| could be done virtually. It's the mom and pop stores and
| restaurants that took the brunt of the shutdown, when
| things are more open again those businesses will be the
| big winners and we might see them take some revenue from
| the bigger stores.
| ssully wrote:
| You most likely nail it. The flip side obviously is people
| who don't have remote jobs. More anecdote, but this has
| been really hard on family members who have service
| industry jobs, and while they haven't told me to directly,
| I assume their savings isn't doing great based on a number
| of different factors.
| minkeymaniac wrote:
| And don't forget clothing... no need to get new outfits if
| you are home... no dry cleaning if you wore suits ...
| jkinudsjknds wrote:
| I'd wonder how evictions have affected this. What's your
| disposable income if your rent is $1,000 per month but you
| just don't pay it?
| mrfredward wrote:
| St Louis Federal Reserve:
| https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT
|
| Keep in mind this is savings economy wide divided by personal
| income economy wide, so people with big numbers (high
| earners) disproportionately affect it.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| This has to do with the stimulus checks.
| snoshy wrote:
| But also because households have lower expenses due to
| not being able to engage with the service industry,
| travel, shopping, and leisure expenditures. People are
| simply spending less because they're stuck at home.
| anewaccount2021 wrote:
| "Source" is no poor people use HN.
|
| Edit: this was not meant to disparage the poor. Quite the
| opposite. HN tends to have a blinkered worldview and part of
| that results from the filtered audience. Sorry, we just don't
| have people showing up here who got laid from serving bar, or
| single mothers with four kids, etc. Poor single mothers don't
| save money by skipping trips to Greece or not going out for
| Wagyu A5 twice a month...
| chrisseaton wrote:
| If you haven't lost your job then your savings are both up
| (markets) and not being spent (as there's nothing to spend
| them on.)
| [deleted]
| nostromo wrote:
| Not true... US carbon emissions have been going down for over a
| decade, even as population increases.
|
| https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carb...
| andromeduck wrote:
| Mostly due to displaced manufacturing though no?
| jedberg wrote:
| Of course, by not by the amounts we saw in 2020. I suspect
| we'll move back to the previous trend line by 2022.
| ThomPete wrote:
| That started before covid.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-22 23:01 UTC)