2020 Methane Spike: How COVID-19 Lockdowns Reduced Pollution Levels

Environmental Impact of COVID-19 Lockdowns

2020 Lockdowns Led to Reduced Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from Transport

Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

The reduction in pollution during the COVID-19 lockdown has caused significant chemical changes in the atmosphere, leading to a concerning rise in methane concentrations that could greatly affect future climate change.

Methane, which remains in the atmosphere for only about a decade, has a much higher warming potential than CO2. Its levels have been rising since the 1980s, mainly due to emissions from fossil fuel production. In recent decades, increased microorganisms breaking down organic matter in wetlands, agriculture, and landfills have further amplified these emissions.

From 2020 to 2022, the atmospheric methane surge unexpectedly doubled from approximately 20 million tons per year to roughly 40 million tons annually, reverting to about 20 million tons in 2023. A recent study indicates that this spike is largely attributed to a reduction in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from vehicles, aviation, and shipping during the lockdown.

NOx compounds catalyze atmospheric reactions that produce hydroxyl radicals (OH), key for breaking down methane. Hence, a decline in NOx typically results in enhanced methane persistence.

According to Matthew Johnson from the University of Copenhagen, “Reducing catalyst emissions leads to an increased methane pollution, akin to a hangover from our fossil fuel dependency.”

Prior research by Professors at Peking University indicated that the methane spike in 2020 was largely due to a decline in hydroxyl radicals and an increase in emissions from wetlands. Surprisingly, methane growth rates continued to rise in 2021 and 2022, despite the global economy’s recovery.

While hydroxyl radicals are too short-lived for direct measurement, satellite data can detect the gases that produce them. The recent study modeled both terrestrial methane sources and atmospheric hydroxyl radical sinks, linking their data with measured methane concentrations.

It discovered that the decline in hydroxyl radicals during 2020-21 and their recovery in 2022-23 accounted for 83% of the variations in methane growth rates. Continued low aviation emissions in 2021, coupled with the slow recovery of the transportation sector, contributed to these findings.

The increase in methane emissions from wetlands and inland waters accounted for the remaining spike. The La Niña climate phase boosted precipitation in Central Africa, expanding wetlands and generating more methane. Additionally, worsening weather in South and Southeast Asia increased methane emissions from rice fields, while rising temperatures accelerated methane emissions from Arctic wetlands.

As countries like China and India move toward electrification, the reduction in NOx pollution could further escalate methane growth, warns Penn.

“Improved air quality will likely mean decreasing methane absorption in the atmosphere,” he states, underscoring the urgent need for reducing human-caused emissions.

Disparities exist within climate models; some predict a decline in hydroxyl radicals, while others foresee an increase. Difficulties in measuring hydroxyl concentrations may also cast uncertainty over this study’s results.

Echoing this sentiment, Paul Palmer from the University of Edinburgh expressed surprise at the significance of hydroxyl radical changes compared to emission fluctuations. “If validated, this findings necessitate a reevaluation of factors influencing hydroxyl radicals in the global troposphere.”

Attributing changes to hydroxyl radicals might underestimate the actual variations in methane emissions.

Regardless, methane emissions from wetlands are set to escalate due to global warming, increasing precipitation, and microbial activity. To mitigate climate change, urgent human intervention is essential.

The new research highlighted by Ewan Nisbet from Royal Holloway, University of London, and Martin Manning from Victoria University in Wellington emphasizes that nations like China and India have substantial opportunities to capture methane from coal mines, landfills, and wastewater treatment facilities. Global oil and gas production continues to lose significant amounts of methane as well.

“We need urgent action; the methane emissions situation is becoming increasingly critical,” Johnson concluded. “Current trends are reflecting the alarming increase in methane emissions driven by climate change.”

Topics:

  • Climate Change/
  • Air Pollution

Source: www.newscientist.com

Assessing the Effectiveness of Lockdowns and Masks in Controlling Coronavirus: An Explanation from a Professor

Over the past four years, we’ve learned tough lessons about the balancing act of public health. Recent coronavirus research has highlighted the need to carefully weigh the benefits and harms of any action taken to mitigate the impact of the disease.

We need clarity on what has worked and what hasn’t in the fight against the coronavirus. One objective of a study was to understand more about this. Here’s what was found out…

Was the spread of the new coronavirus in nursing homes inevitable?

Early in the pandemic, being a resident or staff member in a care home carried the highest risk of death from coronavirus. The virus spread to nursing homes as elderly patients were discharged to make room for new hospitalizations. It was nearly impossible to stop infectious diseases from spreading within nursing homes, even if all patients were tested before being transferred to hospital, as tests can be negative until the person becomes infectious.



Did the personal protective equipment really work?

The importance of personal protective equipment (PPE) to reduce the risk of infection in hospitals and nursing homes was widely accepted even before COVID-19. The lack of availability of PPE was one of the main factors influencing coronavirus transmission in nursing homes.

Early in the pandemic, the benefits and risks of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) in the community were uncertain. NPIs such as closing schools and banning public gatherings were effective at reducing the spread of the virus.

Did wearing a mask help protect against coronavirus?

Wearing masks did reduce community transmission of coronavirus, at least until the Omicron variant emerged. The value of masks in schools is still debated, with some studies showing that mandatory mask-wearing in schools reduced infections at least for the first few weeks.

Has quarantine helped?

Testing and self-isolation should reduce coronavirus transmission, but studies have shown that for this to work, a significant proportion of infected people would need to self-isolate. Self-isolation rates may not have made a significant difference, as many infected people are never identified.

How effective was the lockdown?

Lockdowns have been associated with mental and musculoskeletal health problems. The overall impact of NPIs in relation to their harms is a broader societal debate beyond just a scientific question.

How effective has the vaccine rollout been?

Rapid development of effective vaccines has been a real success during the pandemic, preventing many more deaths. However, the vaccines did not create herd immunity and eradicated the virus. They also had side effects, such as blood clotting and heart inflammation. Advancements in vaccine science during the pandemic may benefit other infectious diseases for decades to come.

Source: www.sciencefocus.com