America Used Fewer Fossil Fuels In 2020 Than It Has In Three Decades (theverge.com) 177
Americans gobbled up fewer fossil fuels in 2020 than they have in three decades, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). The Verge reports: Consumption of petroleum, natural gas, and coal dropped by 9 percent last year compared to 2019, the biggest annual decrease since the EIA started keeping track in 1949. The COVID-19 pandemic was responsible for much of the fall as people stayed home to curb the spread of the virus and used less gas. In April 2020, oil prices nosedived below zero because there was so little demand. The U.S. transportation sector alone used up 15 percent less energy in 2020 compared to the year before. Higher temperatures last winter also helped to cut energy demand for heating, according to the EIA. As a result, greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels plummeted to a near 40-year low.
That downward trend will have to continue in order to stave off the climate crisis. Upon rejoining the Paris climate agreement, President Joe Biden committed the U.S. to slash its planet-heating pollution in half this decade from near-peak levels it reached in 2005. That's part of a global effort to keep global warming from surpassing a point that life on Earth would struggle to adapt to, a global average temperature that's roughly 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. To hit that goal, there should be no further investments in new fossil fuel projects, according to a recent landmark report from the International Energy Agency. The oil and gas industries are already feeling the crunch from lawsuits and activist investors forcing them to move faster toward more sustainable forms of energy.
That downward trend will have to continue in order to stave off the climate crisis. Upon rejoining the Paris climate agreement, President Joe Biden committed the U.S. to slash its planet-heating pollution in half this decade from near-peak levels it reached in 2005. That's part of a global effort to keep global warming from surpassing a point that life on Earth would struggle to adapt to, a global average temperature that's roughly 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. To hit that goal, there should be no further investments in new fossil fuel projects, according to a recent landmark report from the International Energy Agency. The oil and gas industries are already feeling the crunch from lawsuits and activist investors forcing them to move faster toward more sustainable forms of energy.
Fewer? (Score:3)
Maybe they mean less.
Fewer is for stuff that is countable,
Countable? (Score:2)
Maybe they mean less.
Fewer is for stuff that is countable,
Maybe you mean discrete amounts.
Countable is for things that are enumerated.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Countable" is the correct grammatical term. Look it up. [wiktionary.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean quantifiable.
Re: (Score:3)
No, you can quantify a liquid and it remains a mass noun unless you specify the unit of measurement.
“I have less gasoline than you.”
“I have three fewer gallons of gasoline than you.”
Note that even though the top example is not specific, greater and less than are still methods of quantification. You could break #1 into two sentences and still be just as specific (albeit not as efficient): “I have less gasoline than you. You have three gallons more.”
“Countable noun
Re: Countable? (Score:4, Informative)
You're posting on Slashdot. You should really understand what "countable [ef.com]" means.
Re: Countable? (Score:5, Informative)
You should really understand what "countable" means.
It means there's an injective function which maps it to the naturals.
Re: (Score:2)
In the meantime the peace talks are on hold as fighting breaks out amongst the proof readers of the treaty!
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent funnier, but maybe there were some fossil fuels that were in use until 2020 and the total number of fossil fuels that are being used has decreased, thus justifying the use of "fewer"?
Counted = individual units (Score:2)
Just because something isn't countable doesn't mean it can't be measured. While we can play around with things like Plank limits and Avogadro's Number, in general "countable" things are things that you measure by totaling up all the individual units.
So, for example, consumers buy eggs by the dozen: Eggs are countable, they're discrete units.
For a non-countable item, flour would be an example. You buy that by the pound or kilogram. I suppose a scientist could measure how many individual particles are in
Re: (Score:2)
You think coal, natural gas, and oil units aren't countable? How do they bill for it then? Pedant.
Units are countable. That's the point. We count the units.
But there are no units in the heading though. Fossil fuels are uncountable, that's why the heading is wrong.
At least we will see a resulting short dip in the earths temperature to follow, assuming the dogma around fossil fuel is accurate
You are wrong here too. The amount emitted might be less. But the total in the atmosphere still went up. There wouldn't be a dip in temperature.
Re: (Score:2)
And I thought coal finally died.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they died millions of years ago and their remains are now being dug up to provide jobs to a dying industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No coal seam left behind!
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they mean less.
Fewer is for stuff that is countable,
Nope. I'm going to take the title literally. As it's written, it means we went from using several types of fossils fuels such as burning coal, oil, natural gas, and something like peat to just coal, oil and natural gas or something like that. That's one fewer fossil fuel.
Or maybe they were counting bituminous, anthracite, and lignite as three types of fossil fuels and we stopped using one of those.
That made me wonder something. I come from a time when knowing the difference between the types of coal was a t
Re: (Score:2)
I learned that but not in school, and I'm relatively old. But not from a coal using state.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they mean less.
Fewer is for stuff that is countable,
This is correct. It should read less, not fewer. In this headline, saying fewer means they're using fewer types of fossil fuels, e.g. gas & oil but no longer coal. What the article says is less gas, oil & coal.
How do I know? I teach & prepare students for international English proficiency exams, e.g. for university admissions, their jobs/careers, & immigration.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has quadrupled per-pupil expenditures in public schools system over 60 years...
...but clearly little of that money has found its way into things that benefit the quality of education.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No tons of coal or barrels of oil?
You're counting the tons or the barrels...
Re: (Score:2)
...which as they come in discrete units of known weight or volume, is the same as counting units of volume of the contents of the containers.
You can count fossil fuels (coal 1, oil 2, etc) or you can count units of fossil fuels (One barrel of oil! Two barrels of oil! Three barrels of oil! HA HA HA) so what's going on in this discussion is really a bunch of wankery.
Wank on.
Re: (Score:2)
Misusing language doesn't prove the point that you wanted it to prove, only that you are willing to go to any lengths to support a shitty argument. But that's not a surprise from someone as cowardly as yourself. I can see why you don't log in. If I were as dumb as you, I wouldn't want my ideas associated with my identity either.
More Telecommunications = Better Environment (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, I don't. That last year was actually the best year in my life. And, so god and the antivax idiots will, it shall continue into a bright future.
Re: (Score:2)
Pyrrhic victory. (Score:2)
The COVID-19 pandemic was responsible for much of the fall as people stayed home to curb the spread of the virus and used less gas.
Interesting way of cleaning up the air and dealing with climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
Also: With enormously less fuel used there's enormously less dust and soot particles in the air, less nucleation of snowflakes/raindrops, less sunlight reflected from clouds, less snowfall on the mountain tops. By a BUNCH.
So drought and extreme heat.
By drastically dropping fossil fuel use we end up with mo
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, drop the bong and learn when to stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Lost of ways to fix climate change (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why we want to be VERY careful giving optimization goals to future ultra-powerful AIs.
Ultra powerful AIs will have their own goals (Score:2)
Same as our base goal. Simply to do what is required to exist. In competition with other ultra powerful AIs. And probably without us.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, yes, we're working on it. Hell, you think it would be easier to collapse a civilization that is hellbent on eliminating itself anyway, but you'd be surprised just how hard it really is.
So a crippling shutdown every year (Score:2, Insightful)
Because the mass unrest it's bound to cause will only cement green policy and totally won't devolve into third world levels of pollution.
A lesson from history: reductions in standards of living are never voluntary. And the violence that the involuntary impossitions tend to necessitate and unleash are the stuff our darkest atrocities are made of.
Whut? (Score:4, Insightful)
So a crippling shutdown every year
Did you think a crippling shutdown every year would be their suggestion?
reductions in standards of living are never voluntary.
Nobody credible has suggested we reduce the standard of living, so why would you bring this up?
To hit that goal, there should be no further investments in new fossil fuel projects, according to a recent landmark report from the International Energy Agency.
Now this is ambitious but possible. We really need to start building massive batteries to balance the energy grid for variant sources of energy. This is how you avoid blackouts without relying on fossil fuels.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Reduction in standard of living has absolutely been suggested or even implemented time and time again. For instance increasing fuel taxes in the absence of fully equivalent or superior alternatives lowers standard of living - either by forcing people to use the inferior alternatives, or devote a higher proportion of their available finances to offset the increased costs.
Being able to get into your car and drive wherever you want at any time of the day or night is great, having to be beholden to the schedule
Re: (Score:2)
make sure that car in an EV and that works fine but without mass transit systems you'd have gridlock in no time if everyone had to use a car.
Re: (Score:2)
There are many use cases currently where an EV is either significantly more expensive, or impractical - thus being forced to switch to an EV would result in a lower standard of living for many people.
For some people an EV would result in an improvement, but such people will have probably already switched to an EV.
Re: (Score:2)
For some^H^H^H^H most people an EV would result in an improvement, but such people will have probably already switched to an EV.
Fixed that for you. You seem not to be aware that most people on the planet live in cities, villages and towns.
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno where you live...but nowhere have I ever lived where anyone but bums and the like use public transportation (busses mostly).
Everyone where I live uses their personal cars to get around and I've yet to run into gridlock.
Are you in Europe somewhere?
Re: (Score:2)
I basically use public transport where ever I go, be it Paris, Rome, Berlin, Toulouse or Bangkok.
I don't own a car anymore, a year public transport with a card that is valid nearly everywhere is $4000, why would I own a car and figure where to park it, when I can just jump into a train that runs every 10 minutes to the main station, switch to a bus there or a long distance train (that e.g. brings me in 2:30h from Karlsruhe center to Paris center)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Whut? (Score:4, Interesting)
There are many countries with a higher standard of living than the US which also have much lower emissions.
The issue seems to be that Americans don't like things that improve quality of life because of paranoia over anything remotely socialist, like helping people to upgrade their homes or a really good public transport system.
Re: Whut? (Score:4, Insightful)
Norway, Sweden, Denmark.
Switzerland, Germany, Japan, The Netherlands, New Zealand.
Re: (Score:2)
Norway's economy and indeed society would be unsustainable without oil exports... aka CO2 exports. Take them off the list.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps. But if not oil then Norway has vast wind resources that it could export, and it is transitioning that way. I don't think Norway will become poor as oil products are phased out.
Re: (Score:2)
You could add Thailand, Spain, France, Italy, basically every European country.
Re: (Score:2)
Emissions per capita (t/year):
Finland 8.5
Germany 9.7
USA 15.7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Quality of Life Index (rank/score):
Finland 4/180
Germany 8/175
USA 17/163
https://www.numbeo.com/quality... [numbeo.com]
World Happiness Report (rank/score)
Finland 1/7.8
Germany 17/7.1
USA 18/6.9
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Apparently median income is a bad indicator of quality of life, happiness and emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
Income is not the same as standard of living.
Also europe doesnt have as many megacities as the US and much of it is lots of small towns with open space between them. Sure it's not like Montana, but it is a lot like much of South Carolina or Minnesota. Visit Helsinki for example, not a "loud crowded city". Don't like it, then travel a mere 20 miles and you're in a forest. Travel between Frankfurt and Munich and you'll see tons of farms and woods. Sure, Paris and London are giant megacities, but that doe
Re: (Score:2)
Per capita emissions of the same order of magnitude as US
USA: 15.5 per capita Tonnes CO2/year.
Netherlands: 9.6 (not the same order of magnitude)
Norway: 8.3 (not the same order of magnitude)
Sweden: 4.54 (not the same order of magnitude)
Denmark: 6.6 (not the same order of magnitude)
Germany: 9.44 (not the same order of magnitude)
Japan: 9.7 (oooh I'm sorry, so close but still not the same order of magnitude).
New Zealand: 7.1 (not the same order of magnitude).
Quite critically 100% of those countries listed have agressive emission reduction policies and believe their c
Re: (Score:2)
Name 3
It used to be that the USA had a very much higher per capita carbon usage than the rest of the world because they (USA) were 5% of the world's population but produced 20% of the world's economic output, and much of that was manufacturing. When reframed as carbon usage per unti of economic output, the USA looked pretty good, but we'll never be the best on such a list because of the way we are.
Here's something for chart-lovers such as me.
https://data.worldbank.org/ind... [worldbank.org]
Re:Whut? (Score:5, Insightful)
Reduction in standard of living has absolutely been suggested or even implemented time and time again.
Reduction in energy consumption has been suggested time and time again, but it's usually implemented as a reduction in standard of living because as a nation we lack the will to do it by improving efficiency, which costs money.
Moving to EVs will result in a massive improvement in energy consumption while also improving standard of living by reducing various types of pollution. Adding insulation to houses improves efficiency. Building codes which don't produce flammable structures in places which are likely to turn into firestorms also improve efficiency, by avoiding the need to rebuild homes. Building codes prohibiting building in flood areas, likewise. But right now we give massive subsidies to fossil fuel companies, most homes are grossly underinsulated, we let people build wood and tarpaper roofs in fire country, and if your home gets destroyed by a flood we will give you money to rebuild it right in the same place.
This whole idea that improvements have to come with a decrease in living quality is a shit one being used by shit people who want to make shit excuses for shit behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Reduction in standard of living has absolutely been suggested or even implemented time and time again. For instance increasing fuel taxes in the absence of fully equivalent or superior alternatives lowers standard of living
There is not a single alternative that is fully equivalent or superior, only different. It doesn't matter if you are walking, using a horse, a horse and buggy, an ICE car, or an EV, they all have pro and cons.
- If I walk, I don't have to bother taking care of another animal or leash it somewhere.
- If I ride a horse, I can go much faster to closer places, I don't have to pay attention 100% of the time because a horse is smart, I don't get tired or dehydrated. I have to take care of the horse, let it graz
Re: (Score:2)
Of course nothing is fully superior, but everyone's requirements are different.
If a different mode of transport suited your requirements better you would almost certainly switch to that mode of transport voluntarily, and not need to be pushed into it.
For many people's requirements, an ICE vehicle is currently the best option. If you make ICE vehicles more expensive you are forcing people to use modes of transport which are otherwise less suited for their use cases.
What you need to do is improve the alternat
Re: (Score:2)
Of course nothing is fully superior,
Then EVs are absolutely superior but not fully superior to ICE cars.
For many people's requirements, an ICE vehicle is currently the best option.
If I've learned anything during the pandemic it's that this is crock and a cop out to avoid actually having to do something that costs money.
Re: (Score:2)
Reduction in standard of living has absolutely been suggested or even implemented time and time again.
What's important to remember is that the standard of living applies to everyone and not just yourself. So you continuing to pollute endlessly actually reduces the standard of living because of what future generations will have to endure to either correct or live with your poor decisions. You can say, "nah, I don't care about them" which is actually a very strong argument in favor of slavery. If you don't care about the people you are enslaving then they are much better than machines. Human slaves don't
Re: (Score:2)
For instance increasing fuel taxes in the absence of fully equivalent or superior alternatives lowers standard of living - either by forcing people to use the inferior alternatives, or devote a higher proportion of their available finances to offset the increased costs. ... you must be american to not grasp that.
That is not really what standard of living means
Re: (Score:2)
"Standard of living" is a weird term though. People are suggesting most clearly that conspicuous consumption does need to drop, and that big ass over-compensating monster trucks used to drive the kids to school should be scaled back, and some people absolutely consider that to be "standard of living".
We have a big attitude in the US of "fuck you!" Which means I do whatever the hell I want because it's a free country and I don't understand what freedom means. As I was reminded of recently, even in the ver
Re: (Score:2)
"Standard of living" is a weird term though. People are suggesting most clearly that conspicuous consumption does need to drop, and that big ass over-compensating monster trucks used to drive the kids to school should be scaled back, and some people absolutely consider that to be "standard of living".
Yeah, I'm sure slave owners were appalled by the idea of being forced to live a life without their slaves.
We have a big attitude in the US of "fuck you!" Which means I do whatever the hell I want because it's a free country and I don't understand what freedom means.
Yeah and there is a whole propaganda network that espouses that ideology of ignorance.
The lone individual in America is mostly a myth, and yet is has a resurgence these days as sort of a knee jerk reaction against the goverment ("they can't tell me I have to wear pants!"). And it is those people who will gnash their teeth at reducing fuel consumption and claim it hurts their standard of living.
Yep, the same idiots who are now refusing to get vaccinated.
Re: (Score:2)
If the social unrest is bad enouch, there is no need for green policies anymore. People will be too busy killing each other and staying alive to waste resources on frivolous activities.
Re: (Score:2)
A lesson from history: reductions in standards of living are never voluntary.
..and we're living through such a reduction right now thanks to massive tax cuts, loopholes & subsidies for the super rich, compounded by eroding working conditions & creating new subclasses of precarious workers, e.g. "the gig economy," & 'pioneering' companies like Amazon & Tesla Motors which manage to find loopholes & dodges in employment & health & safety laws, so that the rest of us have to make do with less.
And the violence that the involuntary impossitions tend to necessitate and unleash are the stuff our darkest atrocities are made of.
Please tell me, where are these "dark atrocities" happening right n
Re: (Score:2)
A lesson from history: reductions in standards of living are never voluntary.
Thinking that being green and efficient comes with reduced standards of living is a talking point used almost exclusively by ignorant right wing nutjobs. Errr ... Username checks out.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't follow. The assertion you're responding to is "there exist approaches to being green and efficient that do not involve reduced standard of living". Your response would only logically follow from the proposition "there are no approaches to being green and efficient that involve reduce standard of living" which is, of course, not true.
Re: So a crippling shutdown every year (Score:2)
It can be a soft landing or a hard landing at full speed in afterburner. That's a choice.
Guess which category government-imposed economic shutdowns and mass house arrest "for your own good" and the batshit insane millenarianism that demands it falls into?
Re: (Score:2)
Afterburner it is! We're the first in everything, and that's the way it's gonna stay.
Never accept second best, we have to be the first to impact!
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, may some deity, any deity, forgive the government for trying to protect its people from a virus, which at the time had no vaccine or other therapy. Unless, you didn't drink the bleach or load up on hydroxychloroquine, did you?
Re: (Score:2)
I believe I read just recently, that further studies do show that hydroxychloroquine actually IS effective as part of a treatment set of meds for COVID.
Re: (Score:2)
that further studies do show that hydroxychloroquine actually IS effective as part of a treatment set of meds for COVID.
Perhaps in the US?
In Europe hydroxychloroquine doses that would have an effect would kill you.
Must be a feeding/life style difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
population growth is just about over, though. Seems any other problems are engineering problems with known solutions.
Re: (Score:2)
As always, once the science and engineering are done you're left with the political problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Over? Excuse me? Even in 2020 during the height of the pandemic, the whole dying didn't even cause a blip in the population growth graph. We're not growing as fast as we used to, that is true. But that's like saying we don't accelerate as much as we did and pretending we're not getting faster.
Re: (Score:2)
false. so you're ignorant of math.
Peak population growth was reached in 1968 with an annual growth of 2.1% Now it's just 1%.
The 2nd derivative, change in the rate of change, indicates peak population in 2064 at 9.7 billion, or happen even earlier.
Re: (Score:2)
The claim was that population growth is just about over. And it's not. There's still more and more people every year, we just don't grow as fast as we did 30 years ago. At least relative. Because absolute... well, we grew by 2% in 1970 when we had about half the people we have today, when we grow by 1%, which means...? Well?
I mean, you're not ignorant of math after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Population growth is just about over, half a century or less remains. Then there will be no more growth.
Yes, I've studied extremely advanced math, QM and GR require it. Population growth is easy, and we're just about done with it.
Personal Responsibility? Nope! (Score:2, Interesting)
This gets at the dark heart of the ruse that people should use fewer resources, recycle, ride bikes, etc. With a ton of the economy shut down we only used 9% less? That tells you everything you need to know: People don't drive emissions, companies do.
I know someone who has an intimate working knowledge of climate policy and she sees every day that corporations just use the BS idea of personal responsibility as a MacGuffin to throw people off the fact that large change only comes from policy change.
Re: (Score:2)
During the shutdown, there was still the morning traffic report on the radio. Many people got classified as an essential worker and keeps commuting every day. Meanwhile a significant fraction of the upscale community panicked and had everything delivered to them every day because they were too scared to use a mask and go to Walgreens, so "essential" workers were driving around everywhere delivering food and widgets.
Re: (Score:2)
Companies make stuff for people.
Companies make stuff for profit. They generally give no fucks about people. They spend money convincing people that they need things they don't actually need — or in many cases, even want. People are generally easily led, so this works, and leads to unnecessary expenditure of energy which compromises quality of life in the future. And here you are, on your knees, thanking them.
Oh (Score:5, Insightful)
And it only took a worldwide pandemic.
Still thinking we need some technological solutions (like large scale carbon sequestration) instead of trying to force everyone to the stone age. Call me crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
We have technological solutions. Solar and wind power exponentially decreasing in price and increasing in capability. Batteries exponentially decreasing in price (unfortunately increasing in capability more slowly).
Carbon sequestration doesn't work unless you've got a non-fossil fuel energy source.
Re: (Score:2)
See renewables at 29% and rising. while nuclear has been stuck at 10% [iea.org]
The market has spoken. Renewables have increased 50% in 10 years and are now 3x as much as nuclear.
Nuclear has gone backwards over that time, from 13% down to 10%.
Re: (Score:3)
Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.
There are nations seeking to lower CO2 emissions and improve their energy independence. If they don't have enough land for wind and solar power, like Japan and UK, then they need to choose nuclear fission or more expensive offshore windmills. They will choose more nuclear power.
Re: (Score:2)
instead of trying to force everyone to the stone age.
What we need is to tell people to get their head out of their arse and realise there are countries with far higher standards of living than the USA with far lower emissions.
If you think reducing fossil fuel consumption means forcing everyone to the stone age then I highly recommend turning off Fox News, and for good measure donating your TV to someone who doesn't so easily fall for bullshit.
Good, I guess? (Score:2)
I mean, it's I guess a positive thing that we aren't using as much as three decades worth of fossil fuel in just one year...
Small victories, I suppose?
Far-right president (Score:2)
Remember Bush Junior and Trump worked hard to eliminate EPA-mandated and climate-change protection of the environment. The next far-right president will undo all Biden has done for global consensus.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's look at the news when Bush junior and Trump were in the White House:
News: "... Bush reneged on a campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide ... America would not implement the Kyoto global climate change treaty." ..."
News: "Trump EPA poised to scrap clean power plan
News: "[Trump] pulls out of Paris Climate Agreement."
News: "Rescinding [federal] methane-flaring rules."
News: "... [President] Bush environmental legacy is ... his administration's covert attempt to silence the science alertin
Intentionally badly worded title by propaganda inc (Score:3, Interesting)
amazing (Score:2)
it's almost as if we completely stopped doing everything on one whole year... imagine that
New "energy" czar has a plan to keep it going! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep! We've found the solution to global warming - pandemics! One killer virus per year and we'll have it under control in no time.
Re: (Score:2)
Next time around, we should try to get one that actually kills faster than the regrowth rate. Even in 2020, the world population increased.
Thin the herd (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sure the Chinese Communists are working on that.
Re: (Score:2)
Pfft. Amateurs.
Re: (Score:2)
Pfft. Amateurs.
I've notified the authorities & they're tracking you down as we speak.
Re: (Score:2)
So that's why my boss just came in and wanted to know why the hell I'm writing on /. again instead of working on Project Zerosum?
Re: (Score:2)
Just tell him you're having problems sourcing an RoHS compliant red button.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, tried that last week already, and didn't go down so well. He instantly called a meeting and wanted to talk with the boss of RoHS, promptly throwing a tantrum when I tried to explain why he can't have one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah we just need to not do lockdowns. That way less people would be stuck at home together banging each other because there's nothing good on Netflix.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus with some more superspreader events to get the virus rolling, we just might kill a couple millions more next time.