[acslater00]

It's amazing and wonderful how much environmental damage seems to be recovering. Air pollution is down, carbon emissions are down as much as 17%, fish and sharks are repopulating shorelines and beaches - and to think, all it took was the most severe public health crisis in 100 years, a catastrophic global recession, and an overpowering wave of human misery and death

[ElKrist]

Another point to balance the "how much environmental damage seems to be recovering":

CO2 in the atmosphere has a long inertia. The (reduction of) emissions in the past few months will not have any effect on the global warming for a few decades.

Basically in the short/mid-term, CO2 emissions are accumulated to previous emissions, not replacing them

[TeMPOraL]

This only shows that, while CO₂ concentrations are the dominant control variable in the question of our long-term survival, the overall health of the environment is influenced by many, many more things, especially short-term. Now it is especially clear that protecting the environment and mitigating the climate crisis are two different, and only partially aligned efforts. Frequently, they're in opposition - which is why it's extra important not to confuse them.

The example I tend to use is plastic pollution. Interventions like switching from single-use plastic bags and bottles to reusable woven bags and glass bottles may very well help with the amount of plastics (and microplastics) present in the environment, but they're also a climate disaster, because plastic bags and bottles are ridiculously efficient to make at scale. And so here, I also worry that despite the environment taking a break from us during COVID-19, this will turn out to be a huge step back climate-wise - as soon we'll have to start rebuilding, and there will be less money and will around to fund R&D and deployment of less carbon-intensive solutions.

[0xddd]

Unfortunately, it looks like this will be short-lived. China's emissions for some pollutants are already above what they were pre-shutdown.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-china-...

[orion_mc2]

Imagine - what will happen when next big virus/bacteria pandemic hits the earth...Other species will stand a chance when human population makes some room ...it probably sounds bad but unfortunately the humans are the problem - not the CO2 or something else (they are just consequence) - proof is how nature thrives around Chernobyl

[Glavnokoman]

Yep. It is a shame that "intelligent" species need a virus or some other disastra and are unable to keep their population within the limits.

[Someone]

And the bad news is that, to reach our climate goals, we need to do much more. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/30797/...: “the required cuts in emissions are now 2.7 per cent per year from 2020 to year- 2030 for the 2°C goal and 7.6 per cent per year on average for the 1.5°C goal.”

With the help of this year’s crisis, that 2°C goal seems in sight, but 1.027¹⁰ is about 1.3, so even if that “as much as” is globally, we would need about 10% more, so we still would have to find new ways to decrease emissions. I don’t even see us keep our current gains.

That 1.5°C goal certainly is way out of sight, IMO.

[TheHypnotist]

A month or so back I thought I was going crazy because I began to notice just how clear the NYC skyline appeared from where I live. It's always been visible, but the clarity is what struck me.

[vl]

>a catastrophic global recession

Is it catastrophic though? Market doesn’t seem to think so.

[ponker]

Well, the day that humans manage to wipe themselves off the face of the planet will be a day of rejoicing for all species other than rats, raccoons, and cockroaches.

[rudolph9]

It’s unlikely humans will wipe themselves off the face of the planet without taking most species with them. Cockroaches are a likely exception.

[justforfunhere]

Care to explain why not for rats, raccoons and cockroaches?

[TheSpiceIsLife]

As predicted.