And not just that. They're going to be tracking all these kids who are going to miss months of school as a big "natural experiment". Who knows how many other things they'll be able to get data on... Very sad times, but hopefully people can learn a few things while we're at it.
Sure is a hell of an experiment. Can't help seeing the irony of the situation though, 2 months ago it was all climate, "The Green New Deal" and flight shaming. Well, enjoy.
I'll be amazed if things are permitted to return to normal afterwards. Environmentalists will scream the place down to make our vastly diminished lifestyles a permanent fixture.
The general Western game plan right now seems to be: (1) shut down the whole nonessential part of the economy, (2) buy time to not overwhelm medical systems, (3) gradually turn the economy back on where safe.
For part (3) the general idea of "safe" has meant, allow people who are medically low-risk to return to the workplace and retail establishments. But we could see that could be expanded to also factor in carbon impact. In other words, we prioritize turning back on the low-carbon parts of the economy first, and maybe leave some high-carbon parts (international vacations) turned off or reduced for good.
In the minds of people opposed to controlling CO2 emissions, your comment here justifies all of their worst fears of CO2 emission regulation as a means of social control.
The virus is certain to push the US and many other economies into recession, which becomes self-sustaining. After the health crisis has passed, we will be left with this economic crisis.
Monetary policy is maxed already, so we will need fiscal stimulus. This will be the opportunity to invest in green infrastructure. We will need the government to step up and provide jobs and spending, and it should direct both with wisdom to prepare for the climate challenge.
The economy is going to get more broken each day this is affecting us, supply chains are going to break down, demand is going to sink, investment will grind to a halt.
Huge amounts of wealth is going to be destroyed and people are going to suffer.
Development is going to slow down further limiting our ability to respond to those problems.
Meanwhile you are cheering for an emission rate blip and suggest it's worth hurting us even further ? That's going to do what exactly ?
I'm surprised at how regressive the popular opinion is around here - I wouldn't expect it from people who are in the filed of problem solving with technology.
There's a good argument, I think, for allowing the low risk to get infected. They have a low chance of needing hospital care, so best to get them through this (and not propagating the disease) as quickly as possible.
No one is dying from global warming. It's still much cooler than it was in the early Holocene (the Neolithic, or stone age era of humanity) and this was a time of abundance and expansion for farming and agriculture. Even the Sahara was richly farmed at the time. Plants not only thrive under warm temperatures, they also thrive with high levels of CO2. The world is greening:
Another consideration is that when things get back to normal there will be a lot of people that won't go back to commuting as much, less long term energy usage. If the SA vs RU fight doesn't end soon, this will not benefit renewables, but if it does it will be a golden opportunity since oil will cost more and be used less.
The construction of green infrastructure is also going to have to be put on hold too, and in the meantime CO2 levels are just going to keep on rising...
Korea has tested extensively and didn't resort to general lockdown. There was plenty of forewarning but the time was squandered. The inability to act on a foreseeable menace with a two months time horizon doesn't bode well for the response to climate change. Unless we use this moment for a wakeup call.
Yep. Every "steepest annual contraction" has been followed by eventual greater oil use because consumption/production is just shifted to the future. The buildings not being built today, the movies not seen this week, the vacation not taken this month, etc are just moved to sometime in the future. In other words, consumption/production isn't being ended, it's simply being delayed.
The tone of the article is a little contradictory. It quotes someone as saying we haven't seen a situation like this in history. It also says prices could be in the single digits for the first time since the '97-'99 price war. Which doesn't seem that long ago to me. I remember filling up for less than a dollar a gallon around then, for the first and only time in my life. It's not that cheap yet, is it?
I remember in that time frame visiting family in Montana and wondering how they could afford to drive since gas was like $1.30 / gallon there. (I was also like ten at the time and didn't really understand grown up amounts of money)
It's been dropping like a rock for the last week in a lot of places. A friend of mine in the midwest says the price at the station near his house just hit $1.49.
Is there a chance that this will push e-mobility since low oil prices for a sustained period of time will make extraction unprofitable for oil companies? Or could it have the opposite effect and make us use more cheaper fuel for individual transport?
It seems to me that public transport / ride sharing could take quite a hit (at least in the next few months).
> Is there a chance that this will push e-mobility since low oil prices for a sustained period of time will make extraction unprofitable for oil companies?
Probably not. Different areas have different costs of extraction.
Shale oil/tar sands = expensive
Saudi Arabia proven reserves = low cost
This might put some of the North American oil companies out of business, but those assets will be bought in bankruptcy, so they'll eventually come back online when the price of oil gets high enough again.
> Or could it have the opposite effect and make us use more cheaper fuel for individual transport?
This seems more likely. Oil is primarily used for transportation. Cheap oil means less reason to go electric.
How much of an effect is the questions. I, personally, have no idea. Electric cars are improving at a very rapid rate. However, there doesn't seem to be a good solution for people who don't own a garage. There is some condo/apartment charging sprinkled here and there, but it's not very common.
> It seems to me that public transport / ride sharing could take quite a hit (at least in the next few months).
Typically, public transport is mostly funded through taxes, so it's not really in much danger.
Ride sharing will probably take a beating - especially since flying and night life are getting hammered.
Presumably companies that supply carbon free energy still get paid only when they actually supply energy. Even though they may not have to purchase fuel they would still make no money and have all of their operating costs. I don’t see why the effect of reduced demand on those generation companies wouldn’t be the same as the price or electrical energy went to zero - unless rate payers have taken on all the risk and pay whether or not any energy is generated.
I guess we'll have to take your word for it. It's the same old trope from the "experts" for the past 20 years. Putin is about to lose power. China is about to collapse.
> Last time oil dropped too steeply the Soviet Union disintegrated.
The oil price isn't why the soviet union disintegrated. It was their weak leadership.
It's not the oil prices. It's called the reign of gorbachev and yeltsin.
> You don't even need to superimpose anything.
Sure you could cherrypick any data set to superimpose whatever you want to believe. Here's another one for you to try. The time frame from perestroika's beginning and Russia's 1998 default correlates to the NFC's 13 year superbowl domination over the AFC. Are you saying that we are about to enter another era of NFC's domination?
Also, you conveniently ignore the fact that since 1998, we've had 3 oil prices collapses and putin is still around and russia hasn't collapsed. I wonder why?
Nations don't collapse due to oil prices. It collapses due to weak leaders. Economic strain can expose weak leaders, but ultimately, it is the weak leaders who lead to national collapse. Strong leadership helps weather the storm.
Not comparable, at the time the USSR had an unsustainable economic policy of price control and other socialist goodies. Today's Russia has a market economy similar to the rest of the Western world and these economies are way more resilient to crisis like this.
Fundamental to the Green New Deal is a program to create new jobs in the green sector, so we can get off fossil fuels without creating massive unemployment and hardship. This is what makes it reminiscent of the new deal. This is essential to making a politically and economically viable proposal and makes it a climate justice proposal rather than just a climate proposal.
What we have so far, is cutting fossil fuels without any of the support to prevent this from hurting those who are already struggling. It does give the earth a break, at least, but we need the other stuff to help people and make the change stick.
[+] [-] ISL|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davidw|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Udik|6 years ago|reply
"Do contrails contribute to climate change?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/05/911_contra...
[+] [-] samsonradu|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] growlist|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hamburga|6 years ago|reply
For part (3) the general idea of "safe" has meant, allow people who are medically low-risk to return to the workplace and retail establishments. But we could see that could be expanded to also factor in carbon impact. In other words, we prioritize turning back on the low-carbon parts of the economy first, and maybe leave some high-carbon parts (international vacations) turned off or reduced for good.
[+] [-] creato|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] millstone|6 years ago|reply
Monetary policy is maxed already, so we will need fiscal stimulus. This will be the opportunity to invest in green infrastructure. We will need the government to step up and provide jobs and spending, and it should direct both with wisdom to prepare for the climate challenge.
[+] [-] baggy_trough|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rubber_duck|6 years ago|reply
Huge amounts of wealth is going to be destroyed and people are going to suffer.
Development is going to slow down further limiting our ability to respond to those problems.
Meanwhile you are cheering for an emission rate blip and suggest it's worth hurting us even further ? That's going to do what exactly ?
I'm surprised at how regressive the popular opinion is around here - I wouldn't expect it from people who are in the filed of problem solving with technology.
[+] [-] pfdietz|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nerdponx|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrisco255|6 years ago|reply
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fer...
[+] [-] badrabbit|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kijin|6 years ago|reply
But at least low oil prices will help stall the development of shale gas and oil sands in North America.
[+] [-] brenden2|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] makomk|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] azepoi|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dntbnmpls|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] perl4ever|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dade_|6 years ago|reply
In 1997 a $20 dollar barrel of oil is $32 in today's money.
Calculator: https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
[+] [-] war1025|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slfnflctd|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RileyJames|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fatfox|6 years ago|reply
It seems to me that public transport / ride sharing could take quite a hit (at least in the next few months).
[+] [-] nordsieck|6 years ago|reply
Probably not. Different areas have different costs of extraction.
Shale oil/tar sands = expensive
Saudi Arabia proven reserves = low cost
This might put some of the North American oil companies out of business, but those assets will be bought in bankruptcy, so they'll eventually come back online when the price of oil gets high enough again.
> Or could it have the opposite effect and make us use more cheaper fuel for individual transport?
This seems more likely. Oil is primarily used for transportation. Cheap oil means less reason to go electric.
How much of an effect is the questions. I, personally, have no idea. Electric cars are improving at a very rapid rate. However, there doesn't seem to be a good solution for people who don't own a garage. There is some condo/apartment charging sprinkled here and there, but it's not very common.
> It seems to me that public transport / ride sharing could take quite a hit (at least in the next few months).
Typically, public transport is mostly funded through taxes, so it's not really in much danger.
Ride sharing will probably take a beating - especially since flying and night life are getting hammered.
[+] [-] dv_dt|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] generatorguy|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m0zg|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dntbnmpls|6 years ago|reply
I guess we'll have to take your word for it. It's the same old trope from the "experts" for the past 20 years. Putin is about to lose power. China is about to collapse.
> Last time oil dropped too steeply the Soviet Union disintegrated.
The oil price isn't why the soviet union disintegrated. It was their weak leadership.
> Take one look at this graph https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-cha.... and you can tell immediately where Perestroika began, as well as Russia's 1998 default.
It's not the oil prices. It's called the reign of gorbachev and yeltsin.
> You don't even need to superimpose anything.
Sure you could cherrypick any data set to superimpose whatever you want to believe. Here's another one for you to try. The time frame from perestroika's beginning and Russia's 1998 default correlates to the NFC's 13 year superbowl domination over the AFC. Are you saying that we are about to enter another era of NFC's domination?
Also, you conveniently ignore the fact that since 1998, we've had 3 oil prices collapses and putin is still around and russia hasn't collapsed. I wonder why?
Nations don't collapse due to oil prices. It collapses due to weak leaders. Economic strain can expose weak leaders, but ultimately, it is the weak leaders who lead to national collapse. Strong leadership helps weather the storm.
[+] [-] patrickaljord|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baggy_trough|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pbourke|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] advisedwang|6 years ago|reply
What we have so far, is cutting fossil fuels without any of the support to prevent this from hurting those who are already struggling. It does give the earth a break, at least, but we need the other stuff to help people and make the change stick.
[+] [-] adrianN|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gleglegle|6 years ago|reply