Using a combination of various methods, researchers have estimated that about 50 percent of the net anthropogenic pulse would be absorbed in the first 50 years, and about 70 percent in the first 100 years. Absorption by sinks slows dramatically after that, with an additional 10 percent or so being removed after 300 years and the remaining 20 percent lasting tens if not hundreds of thousands of years before being removed….”
This suggests about 50% of the extra human-caused carbon dissipates after only 50 years. A 3 month pause is hardly a dent.
It also speaks to the way the “carbon balance” impacts over time. Land use + burning fossil fuels over the last 100 years has tilted the balance.
But, it’s a complex system. Image sources from YaleCimateConnections.
Turning back to the short term impacts in China.
Deaths from air pollution
We know air particles (eg measured by PM2.5) and N20 lead to poor health outcomes both in lung function —> death and via brain damage —> lower IQ.
But, a little bit like carbon in the atmosphere, some of this damage is long-term. It’s the accumulation of particulate debris in the lungs or damage via heavy metal poisoning in the brain that tips the human body over into health problems. A 3 month pause won’t significantly delay these mechanism of action on long-term health.
Now, it will delay some incidents of acute attacks eg asthma attacks, and where there is poor lung function from another cause eg emphysema, bronchitis, pneumonia.
For asthma, in the US around 3,500 people die a year even though 1 in 13 people suffer from asthma. So in China likely minimum is 4x or 14,000 asthma related deaths, or around 3,500 in Q1. True number likely to be be much higher given the health infrastructure and air quality challegens. It’s plausible that a large number of these would have been saved from the lower air pollution. In that, my calculation is in the same direction as Marshall Burke here (H/T Tyler Cowen). But, if air pollution returns - as it looks like doing - this would be a temporary effect.
There should be reductions from lower accidents as well, although there will be higher social and economic costs elsewhere.
Cultural Change as a positive
This brings me to my final two thoughts on this area and that’s cultural change and innovation investments. This could be harnessed in a very positive way. For instance, to the extent that hand washing becomes more ingrained into cultural practises and even our way of greetings may change (non-Asian at least) that should permenantly lower deaths/transmissions of infectious diseases like ‘flu.
While much of the climate challenge is systems based from land use, transport, power generation, industry, heating and the like - the power of the consumer and consumer preference has its role as well. Not only in behaviours such as walking and cycling but in more hidden areas like food waste.
Up to 35% of food is wasted in high income countries at the table and this could be changed with cultural and behaviour change. It’s notable that low income countries have much less food waste at the table (more in the supply).
China and places like Taiwan and Singapore have shown what strong state capacity can bring in critical areas. The environment and natural capital could be one place (along with innovation and health) where good state capacity (and to an extent culutural change) could have strong returns.
Innovation investments - Germany as of 13 March have announced in the order of EUR400 billion to 500 billion in funding to support businesses across the economic impact of COVID. It spent, in comparison, about $1.3bn in clean tech R and D last year. Now a 500x jump up in innovation spending is unlikely, but to the extent it might make governments re-think long-term resilience, this might be worth thinking on.
