COVID-19 and the Divergent Views to Climate Change

Coronavirus and the divergent views to climate change

//The Coronavirus

Behind the veneer of hysteria and pessimism propagated by sensationalist media, pictures of dramatic change have begun to surface on the internet, most prominently ‘before-after’ depictions of pollution such as that in China, where air pollution has plummeted to historical lows (as illustrated in the picture to the right). Such a trend has been replicated in cities and regions across the globe: NO₂ pollution in some United Kingdom cities fell by as much as 60% compared to the same period in 2019; same with many Indian cities such as New Delhi where the skies are so clear that the Himalayas are visible. In addition, there is a layer of urgency to this matter: climate scientists have warned that if temperatures rise more than 1.5°C by the end of the century, mass damage would be unleashed on a global scale ranging from climate migration to irreversible ecological destruction. However, the outlook of global society and climate change after the pandemic is way murkier, and there is a distinct possibility that as the economy is up and running, pollution levels will skyrocket, people will fall sick (ironically to another respiratory disease) and climate change will be even more imminent. This article will investigate the coronavirus’ impact on creating structural barriers for immediate change, due to the tendency of economic growth, and how it shapes agendas countries have towards climate change.

Firstly, it would be foolish to blindly believe that this change would immediately engender sustainable change. While there are glimpses of hope, such as the European Commission’s new president- Ursula von der Leyen’s proposal for Europe to be carbon neutral by 2050, there is no reason why that will be practical: the Climate Law has been put on hold as the Commission has been delayed indefinitely. On another level, even adjusting the EU’s climate target for 2030 from a 40 per cent reduction to a 50 or 55 per cent reduction is in jeopardy, as projections seem more and more out of reach. Indeed, there are bounded incentives for countries to revert to their post-pandemic state: China’s economy shrunk for the first time since 1976 in the first quarter of 2020, shrinking by 6.8%. Combined with the administration’s focus on long term economic growth, Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air claims that by the end of March, coal consumption and nitrogen dioxide pollution had returned to normal levels. This is perhaps due to the intent to rejuvenate the economy, oftentimes using very pollutive measures. The global outlook could not be better summarized in Wade McGill- an associate professor of earth and environmental engineering at Columbia University- ‘s words, stating that “I see it and I don’t think of a silver lining.”

The Divergent Views to Climate Change

However, there are reasons to believe that the status quo will change. The marked change in China alone in this timeframe is already worthy of attention: China emits over 50% of nitrogen oxide in Asia, meaning that the 40% drop in NO₂ on 2019 levels for January and February in some areas equates to removing a whopping 192,000 cars. This number is minuscule compared to the total amount of cars across the globe, but it’s an indication of what is possible in the short term. While it is irrefutable that the central aim of governments would be to “put safety first right now”, says Matthew McKinnon, an advisor to a group of countries especially vulnerable to climate change, there still is an optimistic case to be made. The impact of the stark decline are obvious: it has mitigated diseases caused by air pollution to a significant degree- it is estimated to lead to the deaths of around 3 million people each year. Therefore, as we gain awareness of the coronavirus (which is a respiratory disease), it would be logical to assume that other forms of respiratory disease such as lung cancer or other complications caused by air pollution to come into the limelight. In addition, climate change is by no means limited to air pollution- the latter is simply one of many symptoms of the former, and it could lead to a host of other issues, such as deforestation, desertification and rising sea levels.

Therefore government intervention is necessary, and collective action is paramount. Take South Korea, which has effectively neutered the virus and the US, which sees infection rates soaring for example: the reason why the results have been so divergent is due to the discrepancy in government action. So, just as South Korea has implemented strict social distancing policies and contact tracing regulation, aggressive policies can be applied to tackling climate change. The optimal projection is that Trump loses his re-election campaign, as the incumbent would definitely use more negative and denialist rhetoric to continue to weaken environmental regulation, as well as undermine the Environmental Protection Agency. However, the situation is more positive if Democrat nominee Joe Biden wins, as the onus would be on him to display himself as a rational challenger as opposed to the incumbent, and make effective change, perhaps by implementing more aggressive goals or cap-and-trade policies. This would be strategic for him as he could be broadening his voterbase, as more than 25 million people in the United States have asthma (which could be triggered by air pollution) and COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) is the 4th leading cause of death in the United States. Again, if the challenger is able to cater to other victims of climate change, such as those in the agricultural or fishing industries which have been affected by deteriorating ecosystems caused by climate change, the outlook of the world’s largest economy on climate change would be far more positive than the status quo.

A similar scenario could be seen in Australia, where Prime Minister Scott Morrison has come under fire for his inadequacies in handling the bushfire, as well as tackling the drought. It would be fortunate if one of the two occurs: that Morrison would try to reestablish his credibility by dealing with climate change in an efficient manner after coronavirus, or a challenger is able to capitalize on the incumbent’s flaws and use climate change as a viable platform. In a more positive light, nations such as Japan have reaffirmed their goals to meet their 2015 Paris goal,despite backlash from the United Nations stating that while the affirmation was commendable, more stringent rules would be required. Other prominent nations such as the United Kingdom have led a global call to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, even under the spectre of the coronavirus. While it is unsure if those countries are able to live up to their goals or even influence other countries, government action is undoubtedly at the forefront of climate change response after the coronavirus. “We are now going to go into deep recession, possible depression, and we have to find a way for the digging out from that to be greener and more equitable,” says Rachel Kyte, Dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University, previously the UN’s top clean energy official. “We desperately need jobs, economic activity, and by the way we need clean energy, so let’s go for it.”

Lastly, it is crucial to draw a parallel between coronavirus response and climate change mitigation. Collective action, similar to collaborations now such as sending medical equipment and personnel to other states, is integral if countries want to overcome the structural barriers as outlined above. Both crises have affected- and will possibly affect in the future- all countries, are indiscriminate and have enormous impacts on global society as a whole. While climate change is obviously way less visceral than coronavirus, it is critical to notice that the latter has halted some aspects of the former for a moment and both issues are worthy of global attention. They both require cutting-edge equipment, reliable government intervention and a reliable international response, and while the battle against coronavirus would definitely be one that wouldn’t extend as long as the battle against climate change, it is of utmost importance to tackle the latter problem as well after the first predicament is adequately handled, or even starting from now.