The lock down situations for longer period in most of the countries, due to CORONA effect is responsible for reduction in air pollution level. The clean environment now available can be considered as a base level for measuring the rate of increase in pollution level once human activities starts after removal of lockdown. The environmental research organizations related to atmosphere science might have taken this initiative because hereafter there is less possibility to come down air pollution level in future.
It is due to the fact that, treats are empty, cities are silent, factories are closed and skies are quiet. Surely this has to be good for the environment. In many countries 40% drop in NO₂ on 2020. Most NO₂ comes from road transport and power plants, and it can exacerbate respiratory illnesses such as asthma. It also makes symptoms worse for those suffering from lung or heart conditions. It has been observed that social lockdown has also drastic impacts on the environment especially on reduction of NO2 and CO2 emission. Slow infection rate under strict social distancing will offer time to researchers to come up with exact medicines/vaccines against CoV-19. Therefore, it is concluded that stringent social distancing via lockdown is highly important to control COVID-19 and also to contribute for self-regeneration of nature. So long as the coronavirus crisis keeps economic activities reduced, emissions will remain relatively low. However, it would be short. Sighted to conclude this is a durable environmental improvement as emissions will most likely rise to previous levels when economic activity picks up as the crisis resolves.
Yes it is a base for research especially if a comparison is done on pollution levels before during and after this pandemic
It is a golden opportunity, but who is going to start the process to maintain the slow level of pollution?
Everyone is desperate to re-start activities with the same old method: Pollute and pollute more.
We need very generous incentives by governments to use alternative, non-polluting methods of energy generation. We need desperate incentives to get rid of the dirty fossil fuels desperately!
Who is going to start that process? Unfortunately, officially, the USA is NOT a leader anymore. However, the USA citizens have produced numerous new methods of energy generation. You can find them on the internet, buy them and ty them.
I agree with Prof. Michal Issigonis .
Here decision making in maintaining clean, sustainable environment will play important role at Government Industry level and also stake holders level . While granting permission or starting any activities or industries ( creating pollution ) process should be supervised by a panel involving responsible representative from Govt, industry person, industry workers, people nearby areas.
This is right time to start GOOD work for GOOD Life and GOOD future.
So many good responses.
I believe that the air quality levels monitored during COVID19 lockdown will be used as baseline levels for future studies.
These levels can also be used safely for source apportionment studies.
The major reduction was from vehicular emissions and non essential MSMEs. Though power plants and large scale industries were operational where it was impossible to shutdown furnaces or significantly important equipment and machineries.
Not only air quality, the noise monitored during Lockdown will also act as reference or baseline noise levels for future studies.
While the dramatic reduction in many pollutants does present interesting research opportunities, I am somewhat concerned by your use of the phrase "base level." Human pollution from almost all sources is still far from zero. Transport and power generation are both still polluting the air, just at reduced levels.
Perhaps an analogy will help illustrate my point. Picture an alcoholic person that drinks 1 liter of ethanol every day, and has done so for a long period of time. If this person reduces that consumption to just 0.5 liters per day, then certainly lab tests of this alcoholic's blood will show differences. Or if this person fasts for one day and doesn't consume any ethanol for 24 hours, there will also be changes. But none of these tests of this person's blood should be considered to be "normal," a "base level," or a meaningful reference frame for understanding the full effects of alcohol consumption. They only indicate the effects of changes in the rate of consumption.
So too is the case with our air, water, and soil. While the reduction in pollution is significant, it has not been reduced to zero, in most cases. (I acknowledge that what are deemed essential services and activities in some areas are much more limited than in others.) Likewise, the removal of pollutants is a relatively slow process. Dilution and dispersion are not the same as removal.
Observations of the changes, and responses to the changes, as lockdowns proceed, and then are eventually ended, will be very interesting and useful. Just don't forget that the alcoholic person was still partaking.
As an example, we had done a similar study related to the effect of the great recession on pollution emissions in the US. The same general method could be applied to a study of the effect of Covid on pollution in various places, see:
Long, Michael A., Michael J. Lynch, and Paul B. Stretesky. "The great recession, the treadmill of production and ecological disorganization: Did the recession affect ecological disorganization across US states, 2005-2014?." Ecological Economics 146 (2018): 184-192.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346631417_EFFECT_OF_COVID-19_INDUCED_LOCKDOWN_ON_AIR_QUALITY_IN_KAMPALA