Anti-pandemic rules are the opposite of climate change prevention

Washington Examiner ^ | March 25, 2020 | Michael Barone

[karpov]

It’s unnerving, and perhaps instructive, that the arrangements that elites have been prescribing for dealing with what they call our most dangerous environmental threat (climate change, formerly known as global warming) are almost precisely the opposite of the arrangements deployed to deal with the more immediate threat of the coronavirus.

To reduce the carbon dioxide emissions thought to produce catastrophic climate change, Americans have been urged to cluster in large, densely populated cities. Large apartment buildings with small dwelling units, it is claimed, consume less energy and emit less carbon per capita than 2,500-square-foot houses spread out on suburban cul-de-sacs or newly constructed on exurban farm fields.

Lone drivers commuting to work or heading to shopping malls in massive automobiles, it has been argued, waste natural resources and pollute the environment. It would be better if commuters switched to trains or subways and if shoppers walked to neighborhood stores. In this spirit, mayors and city councils have blocked autos from bicycle lanes, hailing bicyclists’ healthy behavior while ignoring the unnerving number of fatal and disabling accidents.

All these policies, it turns out, are just the opposite of what’s needed to stop or slow down a global pandemic. Self-distancing and isolation are necessary, not clustering. The broad aisles of the suburban supermarket and disposable plastic bags are less likely to transmit disease than the close quarters of the local mini-market and a many-times-used recyclable shopping bag. Heading in your car to a drive-in testing center is better than riding the subway and waiting in a crowded line.

So it’s no surprise that the part of the United States hardest hit by COVID-19 so far appears to be metro New York City

[karpov]

Related thread: Density Is New York City’s Big ‘Enemy’ in the Coronavirus Fight.

[Dad was my hero]

But on the other hand (and I didn't click on the link to read the rest of the article so maybe it is covered) with so many people now working from home it is reducing driving and traffic congestion which are both good things IMO.

Now mind you, I do not believe in AGW but I've been saying for at least two decades now that if businesses really believed in this crap one of the best solutions is to allow those who could to work from home. It was apparent to me when I'd drive to work and log into a server in another state, why couldn't I do that from home?

Answer, people and management don't want to give up control. My current employer allowed me to work from home starting in 2015 because they didn't want to lose me but were going to since my wife has Alzheimer's. I remember when it started my boss asked me how she would know I was working? I asked her, "how do you know I'm working now?" She couldn't answer it - just assumed I was because I was sitting in a cubicle.

[finnsheep]

The reaction to the virus outbreak in terms of less fuel consumption by the automotive industry and airline industry seems like it could prove or disprove the effects of fossil fuels on the planet’s temperature. It will be interesting to see how it compares with climate change claims.