Post-COVID-19: More Need, Less U.S. Investment in International Climate Efforts

Written April 12, 2020

Canals in Venice are clearer than they have been in decades. Cities across the world are boasting clean air as greenhouse gas emissions have decreased, saving estimates of tens of thousands of lives in China alone. Gasoline consumption in the United States is as low as it was in 1969, essential workers reaching their workplaces in record time on empty roads. And in Yosemite National Park, the bear population has quadrupled as wildlife reclaims previously tourist-filled zones. In the wake of extensive lockdown and quarantine procedures due to the global spread of COVID-19, it seems as though nature is flourishing sans human activity. But how much of this change will remain when the pandemic loosens its grip and life recommences?

Unfortunately, it is almost certain that the environmentally beneficial short-term effects of human absence we have seen under COVID-19 will disappear as soon as “normal” human activity resumes. The positive climate news around the pandemic is neither the full picture of the effects of the pandemic nor is it sustainable. In fact, one of the most crucial factors in mitigating climate change will only be negatively affected by this crisis: the U.S. commitment to international climate goals. Between increasingly dire economic straits, an ambivalent government, and a suspicious public, the future of meaningful climate action on the part of the United States may be one of the most notable victims of this pandemic.

Climate Change and COVID-19

It is clear that the developed world’s dependence on, habituation to, and demand for polluting and CO2-emitting conveniences has not declined as the virus has kept most of us in our homes. If anything, scrolling through any social media platform will confirm the extent to which the public wishes for a speedy return to the comforts and liberties of pre-COVID-19. While there may be some minor changes, including a predicted increase in the amount of telework incorporated into compatible careers, massive lifestyle changes on the individual level are unlikely to result from this pandemic, particularly to the extent that would make any real difference to the climate.

Further, the beneficial effects of COVID-19 may be negated by the less visible but nevertheless impactful negative effects of pandemic management worldwide: recycling centers have been closed due to contamination concerns, single-use plastics are increasingly being utilized for the same reason, and significant increases in medical waste is unavoidable in countries with large case numbers. These consequences are so widespread and pervasive that Li Suo, senior global policy advisor at Greenpeace in Beijing, stated that “the ones that are celebrating the environmental improvements during the COVID-19 crisis are shortsighted.” By all counts, it seems to therefore be a mistake to say that this brief (though seemingly eternally extended) period of respite for our planet has been, by any measure, healing.

This is not to say that human action cannot help reverse the effects of climate change nor that it, even more radically, was never a contributor in the first place. Countless scientific evidence has confirmed this, as well as the need for drastic and immediate action in order to combat climate change. This fact is why it is so crucial for the United States, one of the largest economies in the world as well as one of the largest polluters, to contribute to international efforts to combat climate change and pollution. Unfortunately, however, the end of COVID-19 will likely leave the U.S. even less interested in doing its part than before.

The Dangers of a Revitalized Economy

International efforts as a whole will likely be placed on the back burner in coming days because of the massive economic impact of the pandemic. Focus will undoubtedly be placed more on domestic issues, namely on improving economic figures like the unemployment rate that often dictate people’s faith in the economy as a whole (something particularly important as the 2020 presidential election looms). But more specifically, environmental concerns often serve as more of a secondary rallying cry in politics than a serious issue for the government to focus on. It makes sense: there is a degree of privilege in the ability to worry about seemingly intangible carbon levels when millions of Americans will be out of jobs and unable to support their families in coming months. Indeed, such concerns are what have hindered broader global action concerning climate change in the past. For developing nations like India and China, some of the world’s most notorious CO2 contributors, the economic growth that the use of fossil fuels provides is crucial to the maintenance of their global influence as well as attempts to ameliorate rampant poverty. The fact is that the climate continues to deteriorate, but investment in the kind of global-scale efforts to reverse it is unlikely to be a priority as the effects of this crisis continue to be felt.

In fact, the forthcoming economic stimuli may actually worsen American environmental impact, setting a precedent from which it will be difficult to extricate ourselves. On March 19th, the Environmental Protection Agency passed massive rollbacks on protective regulations, allowing polluters such as factories to self-determine their ability to maintain acceptable levels of pollution. While this is supposed to be a crisis-ameliorating measure, the end of the economic symptoms produced by the COVID-19 pandemic could be long-lasting, and there would not likely be a definitive end. There is thus no telling for how long such measures will last, and this sets a potentially enduring precedent for prioritizing economic improvement over environmental protection, contributing to the re-normalization of deregulated carbon emissions and pollution. This attitude shift would then be compounded by the global drop in oil prices. With oil prices so low, investment in green energy technology could drop as people stop searching for cheaper energy options. At the same time, United States manufacturing may experience a boost as the flaws in just-in-time production and current supply chains become apparent (i.e. medical masks). All of this indicates that the United States might not only neglect efforts to combat climate change but actively increase its contribution to it.

It is possible, however, that investment in profitable green energy fields could doubly serve to advance green technology and provide a stimulus to our ravaged economy. As of April 1st, experts are in the developing stages of this plan; it is a $2 trillion stimulus that would focus on creating green jobs and helping the United States transition away from fossil fuels, continuing to do so until the U.S. reaches zero carbon emissions and unemployment reaches below 3.5%. Obviously, this is an extremely ambitious stimulus — it would allegedly not only boost the United States economy to a state better than it was before the crisis but would be very long-term, a plan (and expense, though that would diminish over time) that could potentially last for decades, depending on the speed of its success. This sounds fairly ideal; as described, it would be a large-scale effort to not only promote clean energy in the United States and mitigate the adverse effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, but would also boost things like infrastructure, national parks, and faith in the economy through its visibility. Its implementation, however, depends on the current administration and Congress working together in order to specifically target climate change and make it an issue in which they will invest heavily in their attempts to bolster the economy. Given the Trump administration’s history with climate policy (most notably the withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Agreement) and the fact that climate issues are unlikely going to be hard-line issues for Democrats, particularly in the chaos of a national emergency, this seems unfeasible simply as a matter of politics. Thus, the economic crisis as a whole is more likely to be a detractor than a contributor to U.S. green energy efforts.

Foreign Relations and Public Sentiment Post-Crisis

Another political concern that indicates a future pattern of U.S. lack of involvement in international climate efforts is the tendency of the current administration to vilify non-governmental organizations as well as to promote xenophobic rhetoric. From the president’s criticisms and threats to withdraw from NATO to disparaging comments about the United Nations, NGOs have been portrayed as untrustworthy, bureaucratic organizations that hamper U.S. interests. This is exemplified in particular by President Trump’s recent pledge to withdraw funding to the World Health Organization in the midst of the current pandemic. Such actions erode trust in the idea of international cooperation as a whole, and if this feeling becomes widespread and enduring in the American public as a whole, it could lead to a resurgence of American isolationist sentiment. Such tendencies are an obvious hindrance to the achievement of common global goals (with climate change as a notable example) because these goals then lack the support, both politically and with regard to resources, of one of the most influential and resource-rich nations in the world. A clear example of this is the aforementioned withdrawal of the U.S. from the 2015 Paris Agreement. This was, again, primarily motivated by economic concerns, with President Trump stating in his announcement that the Agreement would “undermine our economy.” And though the effective withdrawal date cannot be before November 4, 2020, according to the terms of the deal, the power of the participating countries to reach climate goals without the participation of one of the world’s largest polluters is very limited.

Public sentiment may also, more specifically, prevent any significant measures that involve working with China, one of the most critical climate change players. The Trump administration has contributed to national xenophobic sentiment by insisting on calling COVID-19 the “China virus” or “Chinese virus,” only exacerbating anti-Chinese ideas that the FBI recently reported would lead to a rise in anti-Asian hate crimes across the United States. There have already been numerous hate crimes specifically linked to the rise of COVID-19, and even where suspicion is not leveled at Chinese-Americans, it is at the Chinese government. President Trump himself has pledged to investigate a popular conspiracy theory that COVID-19 originated in a Chinese laboratory, thereby giving such ideas legitimacy. Widespread perceived corruption and dishonesty on the part of said government may therefore hinder any efforts to cooperate with China on international issues as a whole, let alone on mitigating climate change.

The Necessity of Action

In times like these, it is easy to dismiss environmentalists and those who continue to be concerned about the state of our world’s climate. But this is simply not an issue that can be dismissed. In fact, climate change and resource depletion directly contribute to the development and spread of diseases like COVID-19: as humans encroach further into undeveloped territory and animals experience territory loss, we become more closely in contact with animals that carry diseases that mutate to infect humans. These are not issues that will go away with avoidance, nor that can be tackled completely with small-scale action. Though the outlook on our future involvement looks bleak, it is important to remember that the changes we need are possible and in our hands.