Reliance on electricity has caused more carbon emission during quarantine

The argument

The coronavirus outbreak has put a halt to a fast-paced society. People have been self-quarantined, and some countries have put a stop to travelling. All that seems left is nature, currently untouched or barely interacted with. The images of empty motorways and grounded aircraft are the most visible thing about the pandemic's environmental effect, and they are also the most misleading, because what is visible is only the activity that stopped. Because of this, some wonder whether the halt is a good thing. Global warming and environmental health have been a concern for many decades now, and carbon emissions and fossil fuels have been eating away at the ozone layer. Now that there are barely any cars or planes around, an individual could easily assume that the environment would improve. The assumption treats emissions as though they were produced by movement alone, so that stopping the movement stops the emissions. But the opposite is true. The coronavirus has not been a great helper for the environment; it has probably done nothing at all. Human activity did not cease during quarantine, it relocated — out of offices, factories and vehicles and into homes, where it draws on a single substitute. Electricity has become humanity's main power source to function now, running the heating, lighting, cooking, screens and connections that a population confined indoors depends on for every hour of the day. Electricity is powered mostly by coal mills, which burn coal to generate it. This means that carbon fumes rise into the air and affect the ozone layer, so the emissions avoided by the parked car are simply reissued at the power station on the household's behalf. The more people rely on electricity to power their lives during isolation, the more the environment will suffer. What looked like an environmental reprieve is a transfer of the same demand from one source of emissions to another, which is why the pandemic has had no real impact on global warming.

Context

COVID-19 (coronavirus) broke out in China during December 2019. In January 2020, the virus spread to other countries like Thailand and Japan. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 to be a pandemic. As each country had the virus spread, people have been ordered to self-quarantine. Self-quarantine has reduced many outdoor activities. Self-quarantine has made society rely on electricity now more than ever. Schools are using virtual ways of learning and businesses are meeting via video calls. It should be noted that around 40% of the globe’s power source comes from electricity. This electricity is powered by coal mills.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The coronavirus has indeed helped the environment in some small way. Although a good portion of the world relies on electricity, it should be noted that electricity is only a small problem compared to what vehicles of transportation do. Vehicles such as cars, buses, and planes are used constantly in society. They leave a large amount of carbon in the air as well. But it also should be noted that they do much more than that. The more cars that are made, the more roads are built. This means more pieces of land that are frequented by animals will become urbanized. Vehicles bring more problems than stationary coal mills. Plus, electricity doesn’t just come from coal mills. There are methods of gaining electricity such as windmills and water turbines. These are being encouraged by environmentalists and activists. The world is slowly switching to cleaner energy. In the long run, the coronavirus is doing some good. It would be better to rely on electricity and cut down on transportation than having both coal mills and transportation like normal. Vehicles result in the cutting away of organisms’ territories while coal mills directly affect the air. Taking care of one problem always improves a dire situation.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Coronavirus is taking away transportation, which is a big cause of global warming and other environmental issues. [Rejecting P2] Electricity can be gained through other methods other than coal mills.