Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States

US Emissions In 2020 In Biggest Fall Since WWII (bbc.com) 78

Posted by BeauHD from the downward-spiral dept.
US greenhouse gas emissions tumbled below their 1990 level for the first-time last year as a result of the response to the coronavirus pandemic. The BBC reports: A preliminary assessment from research group Rhodium says that overall emissions were down over 10%, the largest fall since World War II. Transport suffered the biggest decline, with emissions down almost 15% over 2019. Energy emissions also fell sharply, due to a decline in the use of coal. With stay-at-home orders in place, economic activity ground to a halt in March and April and this had significant implications for greenhouse gas emissions.

In transport, the restrictions on international travel and non-essential journeys saw demand for fuel fall sharply. At the peak of restrictions demand for jet fuel was down 68% on 2019, with petrol down 40%. They have both bounced back as travel bans were eased later in the year but jet fuel demand was still 35% down in December compared to the previous year. When it comes to electricity though the picture is more complicated. Overall the demand for electricity was down just 2% but emissions fell by over 10%. After decades of dominance, coal in 2020 was the third largest source of power, behind natural gas and nuclear. Renewables now supply 18% of power, the report says, just behind coal with 20% of the market.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Emissions In 2020 In Biggest Fall Since WWII More

US Emissions In 2020 In Biggest Fall Since WWII

Comments Filter:

  • Silver lining? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It's entirely possible that this is going to save more lives than COVID-19 takes.

    • Weirdly enough: Trump said the economy was "up" while all this fossil fuel non-burning was happening.

      His fans seemed to have believed him, too, even though they give the impression the sky will fall if all fossil fuels aren't being burnt at the maximum possible rate.

      Another cognitive dissonance...? You decide,

      • Conservatives have confused the stock market with the economy. As long as their stock portfolio is up, they think it's the best of times. It's about as real as the price of Bitcoin.

  • This is not sustainable (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JoshuaZ ( 1134087 ) on Friday January 22, 2021 @10:10PM (#60980994) Homepage
    This is not a sustainable form of CO2 reduction since this is as the summary notes, primarily due to COVID restrictions. This also shows that in order to really deal with CO2 we need to make fundamental and large scale changes to our energy infrastructure. Even massively hobbling the economy doesn't reduce the CO2 production by that much.

    So what can you do to help? Aside from supporting politicians who are helping deal with these things, there are charities which are helping build more wind and solar power.

    The two best solar charities in general are Everybody Solar http://www.everybodysolar.org/ [everybodysolar.org] which gets solar panels for non-profits like museums and homeless shelters, and the Solar Electric Light Fund which gets solar panels for developing countries https://self.org/ [self.org] . SELF's work is particularly important because it helps mitigate the increasing carbon of developing countries as their economies ramp up while itself further stimulating those economies. For wind power the New England Wind Fund is a good one, which is helping build more wind power in the US's North-East, an area which currently has little wind power. https://www.greenenergyconsumers.org/newenglandwindfund [greenenergyconsumers.org]. I'd like to be able to recommend charities helping build nuclear power plants, but I don't unfortunately know of any.

    • Re:This is not sustainable (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MacMann ( 7518492 ) on Friday January 22, 2021 @10:32PM (#60981032)

      This is not a sustainable form of CO2 reduction since this is as the summary notes, primarily due to COVID restrictions.

      Sure it is. This brought the end of many coal plants sooner than would have happened otherwise. It also meant that many older planes and buses were retired. As the market recovers new electrical generation will be met with onshore wind, natural gas, and nuclear fission power. Public transportation will use newer and more efficient vehicles as demand returns.

      This also forced people to develop more work from home, school from home, tele-health, and other options that mean less driving for people.

      On the grid solar is not going to fill growth in electric demand in the future. Off the grid solar power makes sense, on the grid there are cheaper options.

      • Yeah this! Coronavirus is now irrelevant to my own emissions reductions. My car will be doing 30,000km less every year, my company has already decided that. We've also abandoned one of our buildings which used to be half empty and airconditioned and lit up for very few people and consolidated people on site into a fewer areas, equipment running.

        Overall the emissions are not sustainable at the levels that they were, but a not insignificant portion of them will not return. I don't see myself driving 30megamet

      • Were they actually retired or just put in storage with plans to bring them back once life returns to normal? They've reduced public transportation service here but they don't have the money to actually replace a significant portion of the fleet. So whenever life gets back to normal, it's likely many of those same vehicles are going back in service. Tax revenues are likely down for a lot of places too so odds are there just may not be money for it. Maybe we get lucky and folks can work from home so overall d

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      But it has an awful stench about it, like this is a big part of what it was all about. Measuring the impact of carbon emission reduction, which did not impact the rich in any way but completetly fucked over the poor and middle class. Also a test of how far anti-constitutional decrees actual illegal actions can be pushed how many rights can be stolen from the slaves before the buck under the hard riding, and the rich further enrich themselves and impoverish the middle class.

      I am personally a little surprised

      • "But it has an awful stench about it" - thats the problem with CO2 and pollution

      • > But it has an awful stench about it

        No, that's sulphur dioxide.

        It also declined significantly during 2020, mostly due to the closure of coal plants.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Chas ( 5144 )

      Actually one of the things that helped was the increase in the use of natural gas.
      It's not a perfect, carbon-free option.
      But it's a damn sight better than coal, oil or other forms of petroleum-based fuel.

      But Corn Pop just killed the industry there.

    • Re:This is not sustainable (Score:5, Funny)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Saturday January 23, 2021 @03:55AM (#60981440)

      Many Covid reductions will be permanent.

      More people will work from home. More people have experienced the convenience of buying groceries online.

      Pre-Covid, I went to work on MWF and worked-from-home on Tuesday and Thursday. But I have now permanently switched from 3-2 to 4-1. I only go to the office one day each week.

      It is way easier to get work done during a Zoom meeting than a physical meeting in a conference room. Position your work window just below your camera and it looks like you are paying attention. In fact, I am in a Zoom meeting right now, and my boss thinks I am listening. She has no idea I am posting on Slashdot.

    • [...] there are charities which are helping build more wind and solar power.

      Charities?! I could not help but ROFL.

      Have the USA not yet realised that renewable power is a multi trillion business opportunity?

      Or are those charities planning to IPO?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bobby ( 109046 )

      Yes and no. My view is that everyone learned, and adjusted to, the fact that many people can work from home, vastly reducing commute traffic and auto emissions.

      It has caused an increase in delivery vehicle traffic, and pushing / prioritizing for them to be EV will make a big impact on CO2 emissions.

      That and please get trains rolling again. They're far far more efficient than 18+ wheelers ("lorries").

  • searching for equilibrium. The pendulum keeps on swinging...

  • Nonsense (Score:3, Funny)

    by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Friday January 22, 2021 @11:08PM (#60981086)
    How can this be right? Petrol in the United States? I think the author needs a rubber.

  • US greenhouse gas emissions tumbled below their 1990 level for the first-time last year ... A preliminary assessment from research group Rhodium says that overall emissions were down over 10%, ...

    So... how does that compare to our (newly reentered) Paris Climate Agreement goals? We done or just 40% there?

    Under the Paris Agreement, the U.S. promised to reduce its emissions by about 25% by 2025 compared with 2005 levels, ...

    • So... how does that compare to our (newly reentered) Paris Climate Agreement goals? We done or just 40% there?

      Since most of this is from COVID-19, we should wait and see what happens after the epidemic is gone. Most likely CO2 emissions will bounce back up, but we don't know to what degree. It is possible that we'll keep working from home more than before, for instance.

  • I really thought Don would claim "tree-huggers" started Covid to clean the air. It was so obvious up his style ally I'm surprised he bypassed it. Remember he claimed his face "looks orange" due to energy saving light-bulbs allegedly forced into building regulations.

  • What is not shown on this is that America remains down some 7% below last year. The reason is the continued EV growth combined with switching from coal to wind/solar/nat gas. Hopefully, with Biden in office, we will see this drop faster, not slower.
    Sadly, EU/UK did not do as well as America, but at least they DID drop.

    The real problem is that China continues to grow theirs and add more coal plants to China AND the undeveloped nation.
    This has to be stopped. As long as China continues to grow theirs (e

    • Hopefully we will see the Dems push through massive infrastructure rebuild with new technology, like the East coast superconducting power distribution line and New Mexico multi-region power district balancer and battery farm that were planned and never built.

      The Dems will have to get rid of the filibuster to keep gop members from blocking any change at the behest of their oil-industry masters

      • They only just got a president, vice president, and a small senate majority. They can't push anything massive.
      • Normally I agree with you, but here I strongly disagree. The filibuster needs to be enshrined in law, not a rule that gets broken when convenient. Lack of the filibuster is how we got some of the schleps that are now supremes for the rest of their lives. No what needs to happen is the senate needs to get back to compromising, whether I like them or not. It was the way it was for centuries and I hate to admit it, but it was the dems that took the first slice at the filibuster if I remember right. Look how th

        • "When convenient"

          Since when is this situation just "convenient"?

          An industry, the fossil fuel industry, as a side effect of making money are pushing the planets climate in a dangerous direction

          And, rather than recognize what is happening before their faces, they have mounted a counter attack of FUD and propaganda that would make Goebbels proud

          This includes a bought and paid for Senate republican caucus that will delay and destroy any proposals that the Dems are going to put forward

          Biden said it, we have to m

          • I think you are having a very short memory of what happened in the past 4 years, and what *could* happen in the future. As I said, I don't disagree that it is urgent to do more, but I think compromise is the way to do it. We need unity more than anything right now.. Anything. So how useful would it be to enact draconian laws now, and have them reversed 2 years from now if the Senate tilts back wildly? Biden has exactly 1 vote majority in the senate. And some of those D votes are people like Joe from WV, who
        • Well surpeme's you complain about, well that was DEMOCRATS who changed that rule and even told by republican's "they would regret it and sooner then they would think". Even now democrat's are considering doing same dumb crap cause biden's 8 year immigration bs plan needs 60 votes to pass the senate and senate dem''s are considering changing the rule's to pass it.
          • Well thanks for repeating what I said, I SAID democrats changed it. Although technically you might blame Frist for threatening it in 05, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option) which might have given Reid the idea in 11. Regardless, I am glad an apparent republican agrees me that the filibuster should be a matter of law and not be overridden. It would force compromise, which is what the founders wanted in the Senate.
      • I am an indi, but have never been either Dem/GOP. 1 thing to keep in mind is that sooner or later, control reverts. If you get rid of this, be prepared to see more consequences.
        Personally, I am fine with removing it, however, we need you dems to get your ducks in a row and pass things like a WEAK balanced budget amendment. Likewise, we need things like requiring Ranked Candidate Voting, along with Lessig's Public funding of campaigns. BUT, you dems continue to ignore those things, until you are no longer

        • As usual WindBourne is living in a fantasy world.
          It would take a constitutional amendment to change anything so that the next congress couldn't just un-change back.

          That. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.

      • We will probably see what did under obama, company getting 100's of million's in tax payer $ only to be bankrupt within a few years. Then people ask why was money given to a company had really no plans or ability to make a profit.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Smidge204 ( 605297 )

      China is doing more to roll out sustainable, renewable energy than the US ever has. They understand that being even the slightest bit reliant on energy imports is a liability, and renewable energy is cheap in the long run.

      They will be selling that tech to developing countries. If the US hadn't screwed the pooch in the 1970s we could have been leading the world in 21st century energy industries.

      Finally, there's no pissing section in the swimming pool; It doesn't much matter what other countries do in terms o

      • Re:The problem is that China and other nations GRO (Score:4, Insightful)

        by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Saturday January 23, 2021 @12:45AM (#60981230) Journal
        sigh.
        China is NOT developing that wind/solar tech. Almost all of it was developed in the US, Europe, and Japan.
        In addition, when it comes to rolling out AE, there are several things:
        1) America, in fact, MOST OF THE WEST, continues to roll out MORE AE than China on a PER CAPITA basis.
        2) America, continues to drop our emissions, most of the rest of the west is steady or a slow drop, while CHina's and undeveloped nations continues to grow.
        3)

        FYI the US is the largest CO2 emitter in the world

        There is not a SINGLE measurement in which US is the LARGEST CO2 emitter in the world. There has been 1 CUMULATIVE item which is the emissions from 1850 until today, in which America is just slightly ahead of the EU27. BUT, CO2 lasts 300-1000 years in the atmosphere. Even if you go only with 500 years, then Europe and China are so far past America, that it is a JOKE.
        4) As to largest emitters, China emits more than double what America does, and continues to grow, so we are not the largest overall emitter. We are not even the worst emitter in per capita. In fact, we were not even in the top 10, and continue to drop faster than other nations. As this said, we dropped 10%+, but what was NOT said, is that our overall, and likely to stay was over 7% drop. Why? Because of more coal plants dropping, combined with EVs REPLACING LICE vehicles.
        5) America lost our manufacturing edge because of CONgress, taxation, and their pushing our companies to GO HELP CHINA. Fuck, even reagan forced American companies to GIVE China the technology on how to process Rare Earth. W further allowed all sorts of tech to be GIVEN to china (and even allowed them to continue stealing when we KNEW it was happening).

        And as to importance,
        The globe does not need America to manufacture and dominate AE. The globe needs ALL NATIONS TO DROP THEIR EMISSIONS. This is first and foremost the MOST IMPORTANT THING. The total GHG MUST STOP GROWING. And when the west has a total drop over around 8-9% (Europe was only around 9% drop in spite of their early stuff looking good), AND THE GHG continues to grow, then we are in SERIOUS TROUBLE.

        • Usual WindBourne lies (Score:5, Informative)

          by CaffeinatedBacon ( 5363221 ) on Saturday January 23, 2021 @06:31AM (#60981558)

          There is not a SINGLE measurement in which US is the LARGEST CO2 emitter in the world. There has been 1 CUMULATIVE item which is the emissions from 1850 until today, in which America is just slightly ahead of the EU27.

          America is about 14% more than all the 28 EU countries and the UK added together. That's not just slightly ahead.
          Also America is getting further and further ahead every year as it still produces more CO2 than the whole EU + UK combined.

        • > 1) America, in fact, MOST OF THE WEST, continues to roll out MORE AE than China on a PER CAPITA basis.

          "Per Capita" - nice qualifier there. Why does per capita matter exactly? Is it only because it brings China's numbers way down? 'cause PER CAPITA China uses a lot less energy too, and PER CAPITA their emissions are less than half of the US's. That bullshit cuts both ways.

          Instead maybe couch it in terms that are comparable, like...

          Total growth: China rolled out ~40GW of solar in 2020, the US installed ~

    • > What is not shown on this is that America remains down some 7% below last year. The reason is the continued EV growth combined with switching from coal to wind/solar/nat gas.

      Even if the 1% of cars that are plugins got their energy by magic, that would be 0.2% of US energy usage. Zero point two.

      Of course they don't get their energy from magic, so the reduction is well under 0.2%, maybe around 0.05%. if you want to make that number sound more number impressive you could say "fifty thousandths of a perc

    • If Biden is serious about stopping AGW, he will put a slowly growing tax on ALL consumed goods

      Alas, being President does NOT give him the legal authority to impose a tax on anything. That's the job of the Congress.

    • > The real problem is that China continues to grow theirs and add more coal plants to China AND the undeveloped nation.

      China is installing more renewables than any country in the world, and almost as much as the entire world put together:

      https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2020

      Construction of coal plants have completely cratered, which has resulted in coal piling up at quaysides around the world:

      https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-24/there-s-500-million-of-coal-on-anchored-ships-off-china-

  • made a good decision then. i say, expect more plagues. Balance is being restored whether people like it or not..

  • Someone grant Elon Muskâ(TM)s $100 million climate change award to the virus.

  • I mean, that's quite a bit less carbon consumption, honestly.

  • ...that some blame covid deaths that circumstantially happened during his presidency on Trump, then simultaneously he should get plaudits for this.

    Personally, I believe neither is even remotely true, just using the same logic I hear on CNN every day.

  • Who cares what's happening in the US? What's happening in the rest of the world particularly the third world?

  • We can finally achieve our climate goals if we can just prolong the pandemic as long as possible, and maybe also start another one.

  • SHUT the United States down for 12 months and just look at all the good it will do LOL. Be quiet! Joe & the Ho will be doing that anyway!

Slashdot Top Deals

"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll

Close