cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/54245880
The U.S. war with Iran has raised fossil fuel prices so much that the resulting drop in oil demand has put the world on track to see a rare dip in carbon emissions from these sources in 2026.
Between 2019 and 2025, carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels grew by about 0.8 percent annually, according to a new study published in Nature Climate Change. But 2026 is set to buck that trend: high oil prices, as well as the continued rise of green technology—solar power, wind and electric cars—will cause a “short-term” 0.4 percent drop, according to the study.
“The high petrol prices following the war in Iran are reducing oil use and keeping emissions low,” says the study’s lead author Corinne Le Quéré, a professor of climate change science at the University of East Anglia in England. “But that’s not the whole story: The expansion of renewable energy has progressed a lot in recent years, led by China. And [along with electric vehicles], this is offsetting two thirds of the growing demand for energy.”
With all sources of carbon considered, including deforestation, total global CO2 emissions are set to continue increasing.
Sucks how our quality of life has been made inversely proportional to the health of the environment. Most of us have been locked in to fossil fuel dependence whether we like it or not.
covid showed us that at a large scale. we all took a step back animals started reclaming the earth.
And all it cost was millions of human lives!
Most people opt for suburban/sprawling lifestyles when they could live in higher density.
In the US, even the denser populated areas are still sprawling, car-dependent wastelands. Actual, healthy, walkable cities are few and far between, and are almost always reserved for rich people.
The northeast has many more densely populated places with great walkability, but in general, look for place built out before cars drove sprawl.
And many of these places are also the most desirable. The places people most want to live.
You got us on the “rich people” though. We definitely have a real problem with high cost of living. My state’s population has long been stable to shrinking, predominantly because people just can’t afford to live here.
We lost ballot question 7 to override minimum lot sizes across the state to a mere 5,000 sq ft, by only 32,000 votes and many of these opponents thought it wouldn’t have been enough. The breakdown was exactly as you’d expect with urban areas agreeing and sprawling suburbs disaagreeing
I don’t agree—there are many old cities and even new urbanist planned areas. If people create demand, construction will follow, and that has consistently been toward greenfield developments.
You’re free to disagree. The US is a big place, I’m sure there are some exceptions out there. But I think generally my point is correct.