The coronavirus pandemic showed us that global survival is possible with significantly lower CO2 emissions; that was an extreme case, of course, but finding a middle ground between that and the extreme we call "normal life" is absolutely feasible and achievable.
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2026
211 points (99.5% liked)
Europe
11526 readers
922 users here now
News and information from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, the pandemic revealed a quick and easy way to drastically cut CO~2~ emissions. Humanity really doesn't need to travel as much as we do, at least not by plane. A lot, and I really mean a lot, of air traffic is for stuff which should be solved with online meetings. I see this at work too, everything got solved online during the pandemic. But, as soon as restrictions were lifted people absolutely HAD to travel by plane somewhere for a meeting and then return home on a plane, often doing both trips in the same day. Sure some of the air traffic is for leisure, sightseeing and so on. I don't like travelling far myself so I'm a bit biased, but do we really need to fly around the world 5 times a year? We survived the pandemic by staying at home, surely we can cut down on some air traffic to save the world?
Not just that, but making people commute to an office to do what they can easily do at home is fucking stupid
Aviation accounts for 2.5% of CO2 emissions and 4% of global warming.
you can buy a cheap trinket from China and have it delivered to your door for like $2.
and people had even less manners than before, driving more careless than before the pandemic, rude behaviour towards CS, doctors, nurses,,,etc.
There is no middle ground, we ignored this problem for far too long for us to not have to do something extreme to try and solve it.
The problem is not finding a solution but people accepting it.
Rich people accepting it. The majority of people are A-OK with climate saving policies and measures. It's the Epstein class that isn't because they think it will hurt their bottom line.
Nah. Anything that would eat into the perceived convenience of people wouldn't jive.
The majority of people are A-OK with climate saving policies and measures.
I found this:
So it depends where you are. In Europe majority of people support energy subsidies (because it would lower energy prices) but less than half support carbon pricing and even less people support policies that would limit emissions. It's also less than half in US. Things look better in Asia.
Wont somebody think of the profits??
plus nature started to recover with no people on the streeets, like wild animals appearing where they have been extirpated from.
10-15% is not significant.
Even 0.00001 % can be significant depending on context. You can not just say "nah my gut tells me that's not a large number and therefore it's not significant". Missing the context of the data can lead to unfaithful and wrong interpretations. Just look at physicists how crazy they can get when they've made a 10^-7 more accurate measurement of a universal constant. Furthermore, we also have mathematical methods to investigate the significance of statistical measurements.
But enough ranting, getting to the context now:
First the numbers: depending on source, the estimate of the temporary reduction in CO2 emissions varies, but all agree that it dropped sharply. For example, the IEA estimates about 5,8 % reduction in energy related emissions IEA and notes:
Global CO2 emissions declined by 5.8% in 2020, or almost 2 Gt CO2 β the largest ever decline and almost five times greater than the 2009 decline that followed the global financial crisis.
Now the context to answer: was it significant?
Looking at various data:
- A Nature Climate Change study estimated the direct pandemic-driven effect as only about 0.01 +- 0.005Β°C cooling by 2030 compared with a baseline scenario. Nature That's like a drop of water on a hot stone.
- The IPCC concluded with high confidence that COVID-related emission reductions were not thought to have caused a detectable change in global temperature and were within variability. IPCC
Furthermore, emissions rebound quickly.
We can pull out even more. But to keep it short:
No. It was indeed not significant and in this case you're right.
However, it also highlighted other things: the reduction in total emissions and emission rates dropped sharply, showing that if we would've wanted to, we could have done more to fight climate change long ago. (Although the emissions were still rising overall, despite the drop.) We still can.
Secondly, numerous reports revealed significant improvements in air quality in the short amount of time. So at least in this regard, it was indeed a significant change.
Overall it wasn't totally meaningless. Although it didn't really do anything against climate change, it revealed our potential for long term impacts.
Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
Wdym by "if we wanted to"?? We as a species have always been able to turn shit off what are you talking about?
It's not significant meaning it's not a good solution. Covid didn't see reductions in emissions from its largest source: power generation.
Covid isn't a good example on how to reduce emissions. It is a good example on how carbon-dependent our economy is.
What if I told you that we could eliminate another 10-15% if you all stopped killing for your pleasure?
If only it was just heat...
200mm of rain fell in about an hour last night, as measured from the weather sensor on my balcony in Bucharest. Maybe more, I can't tell because the ppwer went out when the water flooding down the block stairs tripped the breakers (I'm currently abroad, now waiting until morning there for a friend to go round and assess the damage...)
It's okay. The collapse of the AMOC will bring a nice chill.
I wonder how that will turn out? There is no telling really, we can't know just guess.
Yeah, seems difficult to guess how it will affect Europe. Certainly no more ice free coastlines in the north during winter though.
But for North America it might end up much worse.
The hot water will stay in the Gulf of Mexico, so hurricanes might end up being insane.
The Jet Stream in the Americas has been weakening as well, which is though to have led to the increased polar inversions. We had a lot of them this year in North America..
The Jet stream that drives weather in the US is also weakening which has been changing weather. Others have told me it''s what has caused all of these polar inversions, which suck, we got colder in my state this year than in idk how long, -27 F. But we had like 3 or 4 this year.
We are getting more and more of these, from like 2019 or so. My area hasn't actually seen any increase in average temperature according to a news report I read. Cooler summers and warmer winters, last winter wasn't warmer though it was hard.
If you mention such things, people attack you as a climate denier, the world is warming, just not in all areas at the same rates, they are too busy arguing with maga douchebags they will attack me.
The left is fucking stupid too. It turns the public off. We need to not be cunts just because the right wing are cunts online. Ignore their bullshit.
That's only if it partially or wholly collapses. If it doesn't get affected or weakly, Europe's still gonna heat up a ton.
Betting on that is risky. And what would the effects be on the water environment?
I'm not betting, I'm hoping. AMOC collapse seems more likely in the next 50 years than northern europe figuring out how to install ac.
Gotta make the best of it. When native species die maybe we can move them a bit further south and build sanctuaries for cold-water species that were endangered globally.
The ONLY source that told me that current heat waves are NOT related to current super El NiΓ±o (which will affect Europe in late summer) is the DW. ALL others says that El NiΓ±o is a significant factor in that.
Have you dig into the data about that and what they says?
So your saying climate change has no reason on why? Are you completly in denial? I must have forgot all the other 40 plus El Ninos of years past or all the other times India has had insane 40 plus heat waves.
No.
Not sure where you're sourcing. El Nino is a beta preview of what the climate is going to be normally in 5-10 years. The heat is caused by climate heating due to the excess GHGs. https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/fossil-fuel-emissions-have-rapidly-worsened-european-heatwaves-in-just-a-few-decades/
hey at least you can heat up water without microwaving or putting it in the stove. and cook an egg.
Fast. People adopt to far crazyer things.
crazier*