Huge global impact
CORONAVIRUS AND CLIMATE CHANGE
CORONAVIRUS was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organisation. It will have a huge global impact in 2020, not only on health and wellbeing but also on our societies, economies and politics.
It is worth thinking through at this point what the impact of the pandemic may be on climate change and climate actions – in terms of emissions, global and national politics and social change.
The drop in global emissions caused by the coronavirus will reflect the level of its impact on global economic activity.
Reports have already shown that measures to contain it have caused output across key industrial sectors in China to drop by as much as 40 per cent, which is likely to have wiped out a quarter or more of its carbon emissions since February.
Obviously, a drop in emissions is not a bad thing from a pure climate change perspective. But what counts in terms of meaningful action to address the climate crisis is long-term structural change, in particular replacing fossil fuels as fast as possible from all sectors.
If there is a temporary reduction in emissions in 2020, could encourage a false sense global emissions are on a long-term decline when in fact they are not. A coronavirus induced drop in world emissions will mean very little in the long run on its own.
If handled badly, the pandemic could suck the energy out of public action and public policy as prosperity declines.
Governments will need over the long term to provide stimulus to economies that suffer from the impact of the coronavirus.
One way could be to fund elements of the green transition, thereby creating jobs.
Helping economies and societies suffer to recover and start the shift to a low emissions future is a way to meet both short and long-term social needs.
Governments need to respond effectively and fast to the coronavirus. This could distract attention and divert resources away from focusing on the climate crisis in the short term.
All countries need to do more in terms of their climate commitments to be ready for the Glasgow climate conference in November. A short-term focus on coronavirus is obviously necessary but must not distract from investment in climate action. The otherwise valuable time needed to build momentum for Cop26 could be lost.
The pandemic could also affect social movements’ ability to organise to demand climate action. Where these voices can no longer be expressed in public spaces, politicians and policymakers need to listen in other ways and remember public concern has not gone away.
Coronavirus is already having an impact on a range of preparatory meetings, which bear on the chances that the Glasgow climate meeting will deliver the action it must, such as significant national emissions reduction pledges in richer countries and an increase in climate finance to support low carbon transition and resilience in the poorest countries.
As time goes on, major international meetings such as the intersessions due to be held in June may have to be cancelled, delayed or done virtually.
Even if COP26 can be held as planned, much time for essential groundwork may have been lost. Perhaps the biggest risk is the intensive programme of diplomatic activity in the run-up to it will be disrupted.
The EU-China summit in September, for example, is potentially critical for persuading China to adopt a more ambitious stance on mitigation. Even if it goes ahead it may be harder to get a result if the preparatory meetings have been disrupted.
If international organisations can learn how to run these processes effectively and equitably with less long-haul flying something positive may come from this. But there is a real risk poorer countries will be disenfranchised if the transition to virtual meetings is not handled with equality of voice in mind.
Both basic problems of bandwidth and quality of ‘kit’, as well as issues with access to the process of planning for virtual meetings could work to marginalise poorer countries.
IIED works closely with the Least Developed Countries Group in the climate negotiations and we will be tracking whether the trend to virtual meetings hinders the chances for poorer countries to have a voice. It is an area where some smart and agile use of a relatively small amount of climate finance might make a real difference.
Urgent response is needed on both climate and the pandemic. Maybe the immediacy of the threat of coronavirus will make it easier to find that urgency.
In many richer countries (but few poorer ones) the threat of the climate crisis does not feel immediate. But the politics of action are also vastly different.
With the coronavirus, there are no interest groups which benefit directly from promoting inaction and delay as the fossil fuel industry does with climate change. Supposedly innate characteristics of human perception are certainly not the whole story – politics and vested interests matter too.
Perhaps the pandemic will produce changes which make societies more willing to act on the climate crisis in the long run. Strengthening recognition of our interdependence —everyone’s health is everyone else’s business – could strengthen the understanding compassion and empathy are functional traits for humanity.
Acceptance of the need to make sacrifices and accept restraints for both the common good and personal wellbeing could help increase understanding of the huge shifts in regulation and behaviour are needed to address the climate crisis.
Maybe this is wishful thinking, but changes in values do not happen in linear ways and crisis events can also be used as opportunities for change.
The coronavirus pandemic is a global tragedy on a scale is still uncertain, and the possibilities are hard to fully grasp. It will certainly throw up some formidable practical problems for climate action and may make landing the key changes we need to see at Cop26 in November harder.
But in the long run, if it leads to a deeper understanding of the ties bind us all on a global scale maybe it can help, rather than hinder, the chance of humanity getting to grips with the climate crisis.