Is something else driving CO2 emissions?

Watch
Ferrograd
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
So this year CO2 emissions are expected to fall for the largest in decades - 5-5.5%.

But think about it: so shutting down half the world, and most developed countries, only reduces it by 5%? Surely this shows that it is basically impossible to reduce CO2 emissions properly, and that something else must be causing them?
0
reply
MatteoDs
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
Because most manufacturing industries are open, at least in Italy, so CO2 emissions will go down but not that much
0
reply
Ferrograd
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#3
(Original post by MatteoDs)
Because most manufacturing industries are open, at least in Italy, so CO2 emissions will go down but not that much
But most flights are grounded, oil production is at an all time low basically, hardly any cars etc

I think this shows that what greta thunberg et al want is basically impossible. i think the "climate crisis" and the conversations around it will be stalled for years as we deal with the economic fall out of this
0
reply
MatteoDs
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
(Original post by Ferrograd)
But most flights are grounded, oil production is at an all time low basically, hardly any cars etc

I think this shows that what greta thunberg et al want is basically impossible. i think the "climate crisis" and the conversations around it will be stalled for years as we deal with the economic fall out of this
You can easily do your research on the internet and find out that CO2 emissions are mainly from industry and also agriculture. Flights account only for 3 % of the total amount. Plus I think they will go down more than five percent.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
(Original post by Ferrograd)
So this year CO2 emissions are expected to fall for the largest in decades - 5-5.5%.

But think about it: so shutting down half the world, and most developed countries, only reduces it by 5%? Surely this shows that it is basically impossible to reduce CO2 emissions properly, and that something else must be causing them?
Australia was on fire for 3 months.
2
reply
uberteknik
  • Study Helper
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
The northern hemisphere is barely out of winter and more than half of the global population are in lockdown. Electricity use, very many working from home, heating, home cooking, electronic games, cleaning, power tool use et.al. have shot up. So has home deliveries. Shopping on-line, social media use......

Energy consumption has not significantly dropped, it's just that the type of energy use has altered.
1
reply
Ferrograd
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#7
(Original post by uberteknik)
The northern hemisphere is barely out of winter and more than half of the global population are in lockdown. Electricity use, very many working from home, heating, home cooking, electronic games, cleaning, power tool use et.al. have shot up. So has home deliveries. Shopping on-line, social media use......

Energy consumption has not significantly dropped, it's just that the type of energy use has altered.
True, but then perhaps we should re-evaluate what is actually causing CO2 emissions. People have been saying oh cut flying cut flying cut driving but if half of humanity going into lockdown only reduces emissions by 5%, something else must be causing it, like electricity.
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by Ferrograd)
So this year CO2 emissions are expected to fall for the largest in decades - 5-5.5%.

But think about it: so shutting down half the world, and most developed countries, only reduces it by 5%? Surely this shows that it is basically impossible to reduce CO2 emissions properly, and that something else must be causing them?
Jan/Feb basically 100%.

GDP fall of 30% in some economies for who knows how long.

Forecast global GDP fall of less than 5% in 2020 vs 2019. CO2 reduction consumately.

As far as I can tell, you're still breathing as much as last year.
0
reply
uberteknik
  • Study Helper
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by Ferrograd)
True, but then perhaps we should re-evaluate what is actually causing CO2 emissions. People have been saying oh cut flying cut flying cut driving but if half of humanity going into lockdown only reduces emissions by 5%, something else must be causing it, like electricity.
The world leading authorities on climate science, IPCC, NASA, NOAA and the UK Met Office Hadley Research Centre etc., all accept that between 65% to 80% of CO2 once emitted, stays in the atmosphere for up to 200 years. The remainder will stay for much longer up to 1000 years.

Meaning that the 5% predicted reduction for 2020 is entirely consistent with the covid19 induced reduction of emissions less the underlying natural cycle for oceanic and plant absorption rates.
Last edited by uberteknik; 1 year ago
0
reply
Joinedup
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
Making large reductions is really difficult, maybe when corona's over the worlds media will start to ask the likes of Greta and extinction rebellion what they actually propose rather than just fawning to them when they pull a publicity stunt.

We'll probably get some interesting data from the reduction of air travel tho... but don't forget corona's been a disaster for people working in travel and tourism... and obviously that includes a lot of 3rd world poor people in places that don't have much going apart from a tourist economy.
0
reply
Ferrograd
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#11
(Original post by uberteknik)
The world leading authorities on climate science, IPCC, NASA, NOAA and the UK Met Office Hadley Research Centre etc., all accept that between 65% to 80% of CO2 once emitted, stays in the atmosphere for up to 200 years. The remainder will stay for much longer up to 1000 years.

Meaning that the 5% predicted reduction for 2020 is entirely consistent with the covid19 induced reduction of emissions less the underlying natural cycle for oceanic and plant absorption rates.
So in reality, their targets of reducing CO2 are unrealistic.
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
(Original post by Ferrograd)
So in reality, their targets of reducing CO2 are unrealistic.
Who's targets?
Which targets?
0
reply
uberteknik
  • Study Helper
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
(Original post by Ferrograd)
So in reality, their targets of reducing CO2 are unrealistic.
The targets are for reducing CO2 emissions as the primary contributor to GW. They are aggressive but still possible. NB the target does not eliminate CO2 from the atmosphere, it's to prevent it continuing to increase.

The target is analogous to the Covid-19 lockdown and social distancing to control the transmission of the virus and prevent overloading the NHS.

To remove CO2 from the atmosphere faster than natural take up, will require some form of artificial scrubbing.

However, the targets for controlling emissions need the global community to pull together. Success will stop the earth heating up dangerously, limit sea level rise and possible runaway unstoppable feedback.

Hence activists play a vital part in focussing attention and gaining public demand for action from their governments.
Last edited by uberteknik; 1 year ago
1
reply
NathanAtro3
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
Are you sure that these numbers are for CO2 only? Because there is a lot of other gases which are large contributors to global warming such as methane. People need to stop farting, that's the solution.
0
reply
Ferrograd
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#15
(Original post by NathanAtro3)
Are you sure that these numbers are for CO2 only? Because there is a lot of other gases which are large contributors to global warming such as methane. People need to stop farting, that's the solution.
No, the solution is less people,. unfrotuantely liberals and even many socialists ignore that the fundamental problem is overpopulation. More people means more resources and more emissions. It's not hard to understand really.
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
(Original post by Ferrograd)
No, the solution is less people,. unfrotuantely liberals and even many socialists ignore that the fundamental problem is overpopulation. More people means more resources and more emissions. It's not hard to understand really.
Good news.

CV19 killing people, less people.
0
reply
Ferrograd
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#17
(Original post by Quady)
Good news.

CV19 killing people, less people.
Well, call me a terrible person, but I've always believed a good plague/virus might be needed to reduce population, and its probably just a natural function of our earth to ease pressure on it. However, for better or for worse, I believe most people who are dying of CV19 would have died anyway, there is probably a large overlap given most have underlying health conditions. (9/10 actually).
0
reply
NathanAtro3
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 year ago
#18
(Original post by Ferrograd)
No, the solution is less people,. unfrotuantely liberals and even many socialists ignore that the fundamental problem is overpopulation. More people means more resources and more emissions. It's not hard to understand really.
Once i'm done, half of humanity will still exist and i hope they remember you.
0
reply
NathanAtro3
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 year ago
#19
The solution to the problem really is to colonise other planets. We need to work together more to achieve this rather than closing our eyes to the rationality of science. This is the most logical and ethical solution.
0
reply
uberteknik
  • Study Helper
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 year ago
#20
(Original post by Ferrograd)
No, the solution is less people,. unfrotuantely liberals and even many socialists ignore that the fundamental problem is overpopulation. More people means more resources and more emissions. It's not hard to understand really.
Why not help the rest of humanity and make a start by removing yourself from the gene pool.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Who is winning Euro 2020

France (103)
27.39%
England (126)
33.51%
Belgium (30)
7.98%
Germany (40)
10.64%
Spain (8)
2.13%
Italy (33)
8.78%
Netherlands (13)
3.46%
Other (Tell us who) (23)
6.12%

Watched Threads

View All