Our Drastic Decrease in CO2 Emissions is Not Enough
Many people have celebrated the fact that in the midst of the global lockdown air quality has improved and emissions have dropped by 5.5%, a decrease greater than the time of the Great Recession, or the drop after WW2. However, an article by grist brings up an important point – 5.5% is not a lot and not enough. Where is the other 95% coming from?
Massive amounts of transportation overall has been cut out and we’re still only expected to see a 5.5% drop, so how are we on an individual level supposed to fix the climate crisis when radically reducing our carbon footprint didn’t make that big a difference? Transportation makes up around 20% of global carbon dioxide emissions (closer to 30% in America) so even if we went completely green without transportation, there’s still a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions.
“I think the main issue is that people focus way, way too much on people’s personal footprints, and whether they fly or not, without really dealing with the structural things that really cause carbon dioxide levels to go up,”
Electricity and heating make up for 40% of global emissions, while 60% of electricity is still generated from coal, oil, or natural gas. The last 20% of CO2 emissions come from manufacturing industries. Neither manufacturing industries or electricity have seen a significant decrease in emissions during the pandemic.
To combat global warming, emissions need to be cut by 7.6% every year, and we’re not even there with an economic shutdown. Despite clear skies in LA and clear water in Venice, CO2 emissions are invisible and still very much present. This lockdown is proof that humans on an individual level are not responsible for combating climate change alone. In order for significant changes to be made, corporations have to be held accountable for their actions.
Nursing Home Residents and Workers Account for Nearly One-Third of U.S Coronavirus Cases
Nearly one-third of America’s coronavirus deaths are residents or workers of nursing homes. This is according to data compiled by the New York Times. Their findings show that at least 27,600 residents and workers combined have passed from the Coronavirus. More than 150,000 people from nursing homes have been infected, spanning 7,700 different facilities.
While just 11 percent of the country’s cases have occurred in long-term care facilities, deaths related to Covid-19 in these facilities account for more than a third of the country’s pandemic fatalities.
The elderly are more susceptible to the virus than younger people, as people with pre-existing conditions or low immune systems are more susceptible. The elderly frequently fall into those categories. Additionally, the virus is able to spread easily throughout facilities where people live in confined spaces and travel from room to room.
Not every state has released comprehensive data on coronavirus deaths. However, the New York Times has gathered data that is available. You can read their original article down below, where their data is shown for case outbreaks.
New Study Shows Gas Stoves are not Good for your Health
A recent study from the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health has confirmed that gas stoves are bad for you. Gas stoves do not often have the proper ventilation required to filter the air. Data in California shows that 47% of homes had improper ventilation while 7% had no ventilation hoods at all. In California, only an estimated 35% of residents even bother to turn on their hoods. Cooking with gas stoves releases indoor greenhouse gas emissions, in which nitrogen dioxide was the worst. Nitrogen dioxide exceeded the level appropriate level set by California Ambient Air Quality Standards and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. People don’t turn on their hoods often due to the noise. Additionally, people often don’t clean the filters in their hoods because they can be difficult to get to.
Indoor air pollutants included Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxide, Nitrogen Dioxide and particulate matter. Nitrogen Dioxide was the worst, “exceeding the level set by both the chronic California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) ambient annual average limit of 57 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3), and the acute National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS, set by the US EPA) 1-hour limit of 188 μg/m3 or 100 parts per billion (ppb). ”
Gas is much cheaper than electricity, and more people prefer to cook with it. Despite this, numbers show that if everyone switched to clean electric alternatives, we could reduce the number of deaths by 354 a year and reduce the number of acute bronchitis by 596 cases yearly in California alone.
Over the weekend a medical researcher reportedly on the verge of a new coronavirus discovery was shot and killed over the weekend. Bing Liu, 37, was found inside his home in North Pittsburgh on Saturday. Shortly after Liu was found, the body of Hao Gu was found shot dead inside his car less than a mile from Liu’s home. Some have reported Gu shot Liu before taking his own life, reporting this as a murder-suicide. A motive is still unknown at this time.
Liu had a Ph.D. in computational science from the National University of Singapore and worked as a research associate at the University of Pittsburgh. Liu was reportedly close to making a significant discovery about COVID-19, with the university saying the following;
Bing was on the verge of making very significant findings toward understanding the cellular mechanisms that underlie SARS-CoV-2 infection and the cellular basis of the following complications,
The new Michael Moore documentary has sparked quite a bit of media outrage over the past week. People are outraged that the film seemingly pointed towards population control as the solution to climate change. Additionally, people have pointed out that the documentary uses outdated methods of renewable energy to falsely claim that renewable energy will not fix the climate problem. I find that whenever content strikes this much controversy and makes this many people angry, they probably have some interesting points. More often than not, the content that enrages people the most is the content that forces us to examine hard truths that we were not ready to face.
Upon listening to media coverage about the documentary I was under the impression that the documentary was about climate change and the fact that renewable energies are not going to save us. I believe this is a pessimistic media narrative painted by neo-liberals who are outraged over the idea that to make real change happen, we may have to change our lifestyles.
In order to truly save the planet, as pointed out in the film, we need to radically consume less on a global scale. This is perfectly displayed early on in the film when General Motors releases a new line of electric vehicles. But what charges the vehicles? How green is it? The source of power is from a Lansing power plant that uses 95% coal. Many people do not want to make radical changes in their lifestyle. They want to feel as though they’re making a difference, earning a pat on the back, while they continue to maintain the same lifestyle.
In reality, the film is about the harsh truth that like many things in life, corporate greed has taken over our mission for renewable energy for their own personal profits. The film touches on the fact that our mission for renewable energy is a hopeless attempt to save our lifestyles, not our Earth.
While watching the film, I learned more about how deep the corporate greed runs. Often times these solar and wind plants are being funded by the same companies responsible for the fossil fuel industry. It was another reminder that billionaires will follow the money, and that morality plays no part in their decisions. Even the Koch brothers have their own line of solar products, profiting from supposedly making the world a better place.
How can men destroy what is left of nature to enrich themselves? Well, that’s why they’re billionaires and you’re not.
In 2011, forests were destroyed to make room for “green” wind turbines. In this one instance, 134 acres of forest were destroyed, and then, in 10 to 20 years when the wind turbines stopped working, they’re sent to landfills. This is just one of the examples highlighted that shows how renewable energy is not as green as we think it is, especially when the motive is money.
Who am I to judge you for being outraged? Maybe you’re a white upper-middle-class citizen trying your best to stay in touch while not really being able to relate to struggles of the marginalized community. Your options are to either move out of your comfort zone to try and actually make a difference or maintain the status quo while making marginal changes that don’t really have a lasting impact but make you feel very good inside. I would imagine that if you’re comfortable with your life, economically and socially speaking, it would be extremely disconcerting for someone to tell you that the only way to continue to survive is to completely change the way we consume, the way we live.
It is for this reason, I believe, that so many are outraged by this documentary. Not because the film mentions population control, not because the film points out the problems with renewable energy, but because the film forces you to confront the cold reality that the only option is a comprehensive change to everyone’s lifestyle on a global scale.
I highly recommend watching the full documentary if you have the time. You can watch the full documentary here: Planet of the Humans
All facts can be fact-checked on Planet of the Humans website.
Smithfield Workers File Lawsuit to Request Protection against Coronavirus
A lawsuit has recently been filed against a Smithfield Foods pork plant in Milan, Missouri. The pork-processing plant is accused of not adequately protecting workers during the coronavirus pandemic. Workers have reported not taking time to cover their mouths after coughing or covering their mouths after sneezing for fear of missing meat as it goes by, thus resulting in the risk of disciplinary action. The complaint was filed by an anonymous worker. Along with the health of the workers, the health of the public has also been brought into question.
Several dozen workers signed a letter that was delivered to plant management during the week of March 30 complaining of cramped conditions and a lack of protective equipment and accommodations for sick leave. It cited the company’s policy of assigning workers a disciplinary point — a tally that can lead to dismissal — if they took a day off.
Many meatpacking facilities around the country have shut down or are working at a lower capacity. Ten workers have died from the coronavirus while around 6,500 employees either contracted the virus, are showing symptoms and/or have missed work due to self-quarantine. The CDC has recommended that Smithfield facilities establish stricter social distancing regulations. Through the lawsuit, workers are requesting changes to Smithfield’s practices rather than compensation.
Smithfield workers are not unionized. Before the Coronavirus outbreak workers reported not having enough time for bathroom breaks. Workers frequently suffered from urinary tract infections and other stress injuries.
COVID-19 Causes Fossil Fuel Usage to Drastically Decrease, While Renewable Energy Usage Increases
As a result of the coronavirus pandemic, in recent months we have seen a massive reduction in energy usage. We’re seeing the greatest decrease is fossil fuel usage since fossil fuels became widely used in the mid 20th century. Coal demand is expected to fall more than it did after WW2. Energy demand is expected to drop by an unprecedented 6% this year, this is around the equivalent of the entire energy demand of India.
While fossil fuel demand decreases, renewable energy is expected to grow this year. The pandemic has shown how poor the fossil fuel industry functions. The cost of storage and the cost of the supply chain to move fossil fuel is extremely expensive, and without the demand for fossil fuels, the industry is collapsing.
Birol and the IEA are confident that the growth in renewables should signal a shift from fossil fuel companies toward generating clean energy.
Some experts have pointed out that if the 2008 recession is anything to go off of we may likely see a large spike in energy usage after the pandemic is over. Others have talked about the importance of using this pandemic as an opportunity to make the transition to renewable energy and not go back to our old ways.
We want to see emissions drop because of a stronger and bigger renewable industry, lower fuel bills and the creation of hundreds of thousands of new green jobs. And that’s what must be at the heart of our recovery from this crisis.