We\u2019re still within the tipping point<\/strong>. We can unleash stimuli to slow the accumulations of planet-warming greenhouse gases<\/strong> in the atmosphere<\/strong>, or to hasten those<\/strong> accumulations. The IMF<\/strong> and the International Energy Agency<\/strong> have published a timely recovery\u00a0road map\u00a0to begin the clean-up<\/strong> of the global energy system<\/strong>. But plans like these must get past an insidious force that\u2019s equal parts vague and impregnable.<\/p>\n That force is \u201cpath dependence.\u201d It\u2019s the ultimate\u00a0rope-a-dope\u00a0for good intentions, absorbing efforts at change until the crusading forces exhaust themselves.<\/p>\n Path dependence is akin to inertia. It says that investments made in the past are what drives outcomes today, not current thinking. Historic decisions hold sway long after their implementers are gone.<\/p>\n Path dependence is the force that keeps us flipping<\/strong> on our incandescent porch lights<\/strong>, driving to the supermarket, and burning natural gas<\/strong> to heat our homes<\/strong> and swimming pools<\/strong> even though we know it hurts the climate.<\/p>\n Sub-optimal technologies\u00a0like these, or like the inefficient QWERTY<\/strong> keyboard, dominate far longer than they should. That\u2019s because it\u2019s easier to keep them and their supporting infrastructure than to replace them with something better.<\/p>\n At the society level, path dependence keeps us tethered to power lines from the coal-fired electricity plant<\/strong>, which is connected by rail to the mine<\/strong>, which is staffed by miners digging coal<\/strong> to feed their families.<\/p>\n These well-worn paths were set in place more than a century ago, which makes them tough to discard. Their costs<\/strong> are sunk. They still function well. Replacing them is expensive.<\/p>\n At the global scale, the virility of path dependence is starkly manifested<\/strong> in the latest\u00a0BP Statistical Review of World Energy<\/strong>. The report shows that, despite the Paris Agreement<\/strong> and all the other calls to action since the Kyoto protocol<\/strong> in 1992,\u00a0carbon emissions<\/strong> were\u00a0still<\/em>\u00a0rising\u00a0in 2019.<\/p>\n Humans\u2019 burning of oil, gas and coal<\/strong> sent 34 billion tonnes of carbon<\/strong> into the atmosphere last year. That\u2019s a half-percent more than we sent into the skies in 2018<\/strong>, which was a big year for carbon<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Emissions<\/strong>, until coronavirus, were going up despite steadily rising alarm about climate change<\/strong>.\u00a0Pew surveysshow 68%<\/strong> of respondents around the world believed that climate change was a major threat to their country in 2018<\/strong>. (Fig. 1) That was up from 63%<\/strong> in 2017<\/strong> and 56%<\/strong> in 2013<\/strong>.<\/p>\n It\u2019s not that people don\u2019t care. It\u2019s that the forces arrayed against action<\/strong> \u2013 established interests and their political allies<\/strong>, along with disinformation<\/strong> \u2013 have path dependence<\/strong> on their side.<\/p>\n That\u2019s why the coronavirus\u2019<\/strong> call to action has captured our imaginations. If COVID-19<\/strong> can spur humanity to take collective action, can it also shove us off our rutted path to a hotter planet?<\/p>\n The recovery packages being proposed in the big three economies \u2013 responsible for 52%<\/strong> of current emissions \u2013 are so big that, one way or another, they will affect the climate<\/strong>. China accounts for 27%<\/strong> of current global carbon emissions<\/strong>, the United States 15%<\/strong> and the EU 10%<\/strong>.<\/p>\n But China<\/strong>, which already consumes more than half the world\u2019s coal<\/strong>, appears to be rekindling its economy in part by funding\u00a0206 gigawatts\u00a0<\/strong>of new coal-fired power plants. That\u2019s almost as much coal-fired capacity<\/strong> as that in the United States. Operating<\/strong> for a normal 40-year lifespan<\/strong>, those plants could add\u00a0another 35 billion tonnes<\/strong> of carbon\u00a0to the atmosphere<\/strong>, as much as the entire world produced last year.<\/p>\n America\u2019s<\/strong> initial stimulus payments provided a \u201cstealth bailout\u201d<\/strong> for the politically connected<\/strong> oil and gas industry while showering less kindness<\/strong> on the clean energy sector<\/strong>, which lost\u00a0hundreds of thousands<\/strong> of jobs\u00a0and now faces\u00a0permanent damage.<\/p>\n House Democrats and Senate Republicans are wrangling over a longer-term recovery package that combines tax cuts and infrastructure spending. The\u00a0House proposes\u00a0nearly $500 billion in traditional highway improvements \u2013 or even\u00a0more, if President Trump gets his wish \u2013 along with $75 billion in clean energy. With interest rates so low, borrowing to spend big makes sense.<\/p>\n Problem is, these and other emerging packages skew heavily toward fossil fuels. Of the $9 trillion to\u00a0$15 trillion in announced economic stimulus globally, only $150 billion \u2013 around 1% \u2013 can be said to be supportive of a transition toward cleaner energy, according to a\u00a0useful database\u00a0developed by Carbon Brief, a climate-focused website.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.enerjigazetesi.ist\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/koronavirus-bizi-fosil-yakitlardan-kurtaracak-mi.jpg\")
<\/p>\n