Âé¶¹ÒùÔº


Why a 17% emissions drop does not mean we are addressing climate change

Why a 17% emissions drop does not mean we are addressing climate change
Credit: AI-generated image ()

The global COVID-19 quarantine has meant less air pollution in cities and clearer skies. Animals are strolling through public spaces, and sound pollution has diminished, allowing us to hear the birds sing.

But these relatively small and temporary changes should not be mistaken for the COVID-19 pandemic actually helping to fix climate change. Quite the contrary: the pandemic that made the world stop offers a glimpse of the deep changes in lifestyles and economic structures that we need to implement if we are to effectively mitigate the worst of climate change.

The are not in doubt. A new study in led by scientists from the University of East Anglia and Stanford has found that daily global COâ‚‚ emissions in early April 2020 were down 17% compared to the mean level of emissions in 2019.

This finding backs up an earlier report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) which found that CO₂ emissions from —globally, the main source of greenhouse gas emissions—in the first three months of 2020 compared to the same period last year.

But the short-term and long-term effects of pollution are different things, and a few months without driving or flying will do little in the long run. Climate change is caused by rising concentrations of in the atmosphere. Quarantine measures have affected emissions of these gases in the short term, and many places have seen a drop in air pollution. But these measures were not enough to curb the overall concentration in the atmosphere, which is . Why? Because molecules of these gases stay in the atmosphere for a long time: methane for around 12 years, for instance, and carbon dioxide for .

Emissions declined, but it won't last

The new Nature climate change study predicts that if some restrictions are kept throughout the whole of 2020 annual emissions reductions would reach 7.5%.

This would, in theory, be great news for the environment, especially if we could maintain it for years to come. After all, in order to meet the Paris Agreement target of limiting global warming to 1.5℃, we need to reduce global CO₂ emissions by .

But this level of emissions reduction will not last unless remains depressed. And as lockdowns end and people return to work, emissions will inevitably rise once again—this happens as activity resumes after every economic downturn, including the financial crisis of 2008.

Keeping economic activity depressed to April 2020 levels is not a feasible long-term strategy. But we could use this opportunity productively to steer our societies towards a new paradigm that truly addresses the core issue of the climate conundrum.

We need to restructure our economies

Fossil fuels are the basis of our economies. Our are built around them and surprisingly little has changed since the first oil shocks in 1973. Back then, coal, oil and gas accounted for 87% of the world's total primary energy supply, while in 2017 these still accounted for 81%. Over that same period, the total amount of energy supplied .

Yes, there is lots of new renewable energy, but this has been deployed alongside fossil fuels, . All over the globe, there are still plans to build new and . Even countries like Norway, where fossil fuels count for of the total energy supply and almost all electricity comes from , still often rely heavily on fossil fuel profits to fund welfare systems and .

If we are to truly progress towards a low carbon economy, we must address the roots of the problem. For instance, how can we encourage further divestment from fossil fuels if the sector is still among the most secure and profitable investments? Or how can we build clean energy systems if we keep subsidizing fossil fuels? Despite promises to phase out these tax breaks and other incentives, the richer G20 countries still provided (remarkably, that figure excludes Saudi Arabia).

And how can we resume activity without "going back to normal"? We need long-term recovery strategies that value nature as the overarching framework within which we all exist, not a mere . To date, several include generous help to the fossil sector with no strings attached.

The pandemic is no panacea. We now know that we can act collectively and adopt measures that significantly curb emissions—in the short term at least. But long-term change does not come about directly as a result of a crisis, but from consistent action changing what caused the crisis in the first place. The COVID-19 pandemic is only a wake-up call: we still have a lot of work to do.

Journal information: Nature Climate Change

Provided by The Conversation

This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .The Conversation

Citation: Why a 17% emissions drop does not mean we are addressing climate change (2020, May 21) retrieved 7 May 2025 from /news/2020-05-emissions-climate.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Explore further

Global CO2 emissions to drop 4-7% in 2020, but will it matter?

6 shares

Feedback to editors