Ithere was indeed a study which is published in Nature – Climate Change in May 2020 who had quantified the planetary CO emissions2 from January to April. Its authors did not take direct measurements of the GHGs released into the atmosphere, but rather estimated them from activity data (industrial production, transport, etc.) and health policies. And they concluded that the containment of the first wave had reduced planetary CO emissions.2 by about 17% in the first few months of 2020, and they expected that, year-round, the decline would be around 7%.
It was absolutely huge: by comparison, the recession that followed the severe financial crisis of 2008 only reduced CO emissions by 1.4%.2. But it was at the same time very little and, above all, very punctual, warned the study, which specified that “the social response alone (…) cannot be the engine of the deep and sustained reductions which are necessary for ‘achieving carbon neutrality’ – political gestures like the Green New Deal are still needed.
A few months later, another study with data going through July (published in Nature – Communications, that one) showed that the deconfinement of last summer had canceled an appreciable part of the “gains” made in the spring.
Nothing to rejoice
And yet another article, published last October, tried to estimate what kind of effect this “COVID pause” was going to have in terms of warming. And we cannot say that there is “cause for celebration”, to use the words of Mr. Paradis: by 2030, the GHGs that have been “avoided” by the pandemic will have a cooling effect of … 0.01 ° C. Not enough to write to his mother.
Moreover, when we directly measure GHGs in the air instead of indirectly measuring emissions, we essentially get the same picture. In the remote weather stations of the United States Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), carbon dioxide concentrations measured in 2020 were 412.5 parts per million (ppm), 2.6 ppm more than in 2019. (By comparison, there were about 280 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere in the pre-industrial era.) This is the fifth fastest growing recorded to date.
With regard to methane (CH4), another important greenhouse gas, the increase was even greater in 2020: 6% more than the previous year, which is a record.
So where do these GHGs come from? NOAA hasn’t identified a specific source, but let’s say regarding CO2 that some countries – especially China, the world’s main emitter – have resumed or even exceeded their 2019 emission levels. And on the methane side, chemical analyzes suggest that the sources are biological: cattle, marshes, and other such sources have not ceased to live because everyone was cloistered. In addition, the thaw of permafrost in the Arctic continued in 2020, adding another source of CH4 independent of containments.
None of this, if it needs to be specified, does not mean that the pandemic has had no effect on our GHG emissions and their atmospheric concentration. It’s just that the growth would have been even stronger without them.
So at the end of the day, we can say that yes, of course, our lifestyles make a difference. The fact of traveling by car every day to go to work, international travel, our level of consumption, etc., all of this has a “carbon footprint”, as climatologists say. The drop in GHG emissions noted in 2020 proves this very well. And maybe some of the new habits taken over the past year, especially teleworking, will continue in the long term and help us (a little) to reduce our CO emissions.2. We’ll see.
But what all of this shows above all, as several have noted reactions to the works I am quoting hereis that it will not work a miracle. The crux of the matter lies elsewhere, in our energy sources. As long as we depend as heavily as now on fossil fuels (petroleum, natural gas and coal), progress cannot be great. The main thing is to convert to green energy, and as quickly as possible – but that has little to do with the habits of Mr. and Mrs. Everybody.
–
