Emerging from Lockdown, Now Is Our Chance to Press the Refresh Button and Tackle Climate Change
We’ve seen positive changes to our environment from lockdown. But can they last?
As we emerge from our locked down dens, and our cities and towns begin to become alive again, we enter a world unlike the one we left.
Locking down the world has caused daily global emissions to drop by 17% from this time last year, according to a Nature Climate Change study. Many short term consequences of the lockdown have been favourable for the environment. But the most pressing question we now face is can we keep up the promising progress and tackle climate change? Or are we going to head right back to where we began, with the climate threat looming over us like a dark demon that we ignore until it is too late?
We have been facing unemployment, poor health, fear and fatality, but the coronavirus crisis has given nature a chance to breathe. There is less traffic, cleaner air and clearer skies. Citizens are walking and cycling more and travellers are no longer hopping on airplanes at the drop of a hat. There has been enough silence to hear the sound of birds singing, enough space for wild animals to wander into desolate cities and I’m sure I’m not the only one who has noticed a fuller bed of stars in the city sky. The lockdown has taken emissions back to levels prevailing in 2006. The fact that just 14 years ago we emitted the same under normal circumstances as locking hundreds of millions of us all down now shows just how much pollution has increased in very recent years. This isn’t an issue we can simply blame on ancestral generations: we are the ones who, in current times, are actively producing unprecedented levels of emissions. We are making the climate disaster much worse.
One thing is clear: even though emission levels are currently down and there are some positive effects, these are slight and short-lived. If we go straight back to how we were before the lockdowns, the world would be just like a smoker who had quit smoking 20 cigarettes a day for a week, and swiftly felt the benefit in her lungs, but then returned to 20 a day and on to 30 and then 35 and more until the inevitable happened. We live in a society where more is the answer to everyone’s issues. More holidays and clothes, faster food and internet, is what seems to make people happy. But is it really the answer? Do we need instant gratification and to have everything and everyone at the tip of our fingers? In his report Prosperity without growth, Professor Tim Jackson explains how our obsession with a growing economy and increasing consumption is built on social inequality and ecological destruction. Our economic model leaves two billion people living below $2 a day and a fifth of the world’s population earning just 2% of global income. Jackson notes how even for those few who prosper in economic growth, “this relentless novelty seeds social anxiety and weakens our ability to protect long-term social goals”. He sees real prosperity as transcending material wealth, and being better located in the quality of our lives, the health and happiness of our families, the satisfaction and purposefulness of our work, the strength of our relationships and the trust of our community.
Only something as major as a pandemic would put the world into lockdown and allow us to temporarily cease our greedy striving for economic growth and pause the activities that cause climate change. Never before have we been able to press the refresh button and given so clear an opportunity to start a new system. The major shock we are experiencing is the world’s way of telling us that something is wrong.
To meet the 2015 Paris Agreement target of limiting global warming to 1.5℃, we need to reduce global CO₂ emissions by 7.6% per year between 2020 and 2030. The UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has laid out just how much more catastrophic the consequences would be of approaching 2℃, rather than staying below 1.5℃. Climate change is already devastating communities. Extreme weather disasters are becoming more frequent, powerful and unpredictable. The UK floods and the Australian bushfires earlier this year are examples. We’re also in the midst of a sixth mass extinction and are set to lose millions of species. It was found recently that the amount spent worldwide on nature conservation has only been about as much as the UK spends on ice cream. Do we have our priorities right?
There will still be hardship endured at a warming of 1.5°C, but if the increase gets closer to 2°C, the risks to humanity and ecosystems amplify to calamitous levels. That tiny window of 0.5°C is therefore crucial.
At 2°C the number of species lost as a result of climate change is double the amount lost at 1.5°C. We rely on the health of our ecosystems in order to survive and prosper. 70–90% of coral reefs could be lost at a temperature rise of 1.5°C, but while this would be shattering for the human and creature livelihoods they support, if this happens slowly there would be a chance of recovery in the long term. But at 2°C of warming, 99% of reefs could be killed and this will probably be irreversible. The same goes for sea ice: once we are near that higher increase in temperature, the ice will melt and sea levels will rise. Arctic wildlife would be devastated. Homes and livelihoods across the world would be flooded and destroyed.
If we instead limit the warming to just 1.5°C or under, there is a 70% chance the Arctic sea ice remains. For the Greenland ice sheet for example, the melting is most likely to happen at 1.6°C. In spite of the countless warnings, governments are not even close to committing to limiting warming to 2°C, let alone 1.5°C, and a temperature rise nearing 4°C is looking more likely. This would have earth-shaking consequences and we would be looking at widespread ecosystem collapse and a threat to human civilisation.
In conventional terms, we are about to face one of the worst recessions in human history. Governments will focus on successful economic recovery as soon as possible, and environmental laws and protection are often the first to be deprioritized or scrapped after an economic downturn, on the ground that they may threaten or delay short term economic growth. Governments including the US, Canada and India have already reportedly diluted environmental laws on projects so that they go ahead without proper regulation as a result of Covid-19. If this is the approach chosen, not only will we return to the harm and degradation that we were causing before lockdown, but all the hard work of lawmakers and campaigners will be undone.
In fact, it has been shown that it is actually economically beneficial to protect environmental laws. Research co-ordinated by Professor Cameron Hepburn at Oxford University shows that climate friendly projects create more jobs and deliver higher returns than traditional stimulus packages in the shorter and longer term. Britain’s Chancellor Rishi Sunak, has recently announced plans for a Green Industrial Revolution, which would create millions of jobs for those made redundant by the pandemic. This would not only help Britain meet its environmental targets with a long overdue investment into clean energy, but it would reskill the workforce and boost the economy. If we start thinking in the long term, rather than the short term gains, it could also save our economy trillions of dollars.
Our economy relies heavily on fossil fuels. Most of the energy we use comes from oil, coal and gas, and their use has risen exponentially over the past decades. These fuels not only emit colossal capacities of carbon, they fill our air with carcinogenic particles and toxic chemicals. Despite the danger, there are still plans all over the world to build more fossil fuel infrastructure and there have been a plethora of polluter bailouts to generously help the fossil fuel sector recover from the pandemic. In the US for example, polluter assistance includes a relaxation of both taxes and environmental laws applicable to the fossil fuel industry.
At the same time support for the green energy sector was not included in the $2tn coronavirus aid bill in March. Renewable energy works but alongside a hugely profitable fossil fuel industry it only goes so far. The issue is not the lack of renewable energy, it is how much our economy thrives from fossil fuels. Therefore there needs to be a restructuring of the economy and stricter legislation to align with our environmental goals. There are some signs that we are steering towards the right direction. In the US this year, despite Trump’s efforts to support the coal industry, more energy was consumed from renewables than coal for the first time ever. India, one of the fastest growing coal users, has seen its first decline in carbon emissions in almost four decades due to a diminished demand for fuel. Lockdown is at fault here, but it is becoming clear to producers that once you have built your power station, it is more economical to run on those that rely on the weather than on fuel. The BBC recently reported that fossil fuel use is predicted to decline in the UK in the coming year, pointing to economic concerns at play. If we can steer the economic incentive away from fossil fuel, we can become more hopeful of a green system.
Another beneficial outcome of the pandemic is the worldwide expansion of bike lanes and footpaths. Electric mobility is becoming more entrenched into daily life. In the UK, the government is providing £250 million for new cycling and walking infrastructure. Cycle-to-work schemes have meant a 200% increase in bicycle orders and the legalisation of rented e-scooters has been rapidly accelerated. The increased demand for green methods of transport is promising because the fall in road traffic was a main driver of the drop in global emissions. But fear of the disease has meant car owners are using their vehicles when they would have in the past taken public transport. To have a positive effect on climate change, green mobility including electric cars, electric bicycles and electric scooters need to be encouraged more for those longer journeys. Otherwise along with more vehicle traffic and road accidents, we will end up with more air pollution.
Green private mobility should work alongside a new public transport system that prioritises the hygiene and safety of customers. In an ideal world, we would have car free city centres, allowing for cleaner air, less noise, no traffic and more space. Cycling would be encouraged through permanent cycle lanes and cycle-to-work schemes, and this should be accompanied by electric micro mobility in the forms of e-bikes and e-scooters. Cars should only be used for longer journeys and they should be electric, with accessible and affordable charging infrastructure. There should also be subsidised sales on all new electric vehicles.
A recent study by Nottingham Trent University found that if the UK went entirely electric, its carbon emissions would drop by 12%. Moreover, although the initial cost of an electric vehicle is higher than a conventional car, in the long term it is cheaper to charge. People should work from home at least some of the time if they can. Commuting on public transport should be staggered for different industries and there should be daily deep cleans. The pandemic has allowed businesses to review what travel is essential and what can be done remotely. With climate goals in mind, this should be continued. A transport revolution goes beyond helping to save our planet, it is a bold move towards healthier living, surely a number one desire after the spread of this deadly disease.
As the IPCC tells us, transforming our energy and transport systems is not enough. Another industry in which it is time for change is the food sector. Intensive industrial farming and overfishing are systems that cause stupendous environmental damage. Not only do closely confined animals and overused antibiotics threaten the likelihood of another pandemic, agricultural pollution is a major threat to our health in that it contaminates water, poisons livestock and once pesticides and fertilizers enter the ecosystem, they do not disappear. We currently exploit 72% of the planet’s ice free land. Agriculture, forestry and other land use accounts for a quarter of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Just as some laws regulating fossil fuels have recently been relaxed, there have been pushes for the postponement of laws in farming, including the EU farmer’s association Copa-Cogeca successfully delaying the “Farm to Fork” strategy, intended to make agriculture less polluting. Moreover in the US, lobbying by the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association won a $23.5bn bailout package. Scientists have stated that avoiding meat and dairy products is the single biggest way to reduce your personal environmental impact on the planet. It does not seem feasible for the whole world to go vegan, because we are too entrenched in our eating habits, but we are eating too much animal products currently, and the meat and dairy we do eat should have improved animal welfare and environmental standards. Governments must impose strict climate aligned legislation on agriculture. Not only does our current system contribute to climate change and harm animal welfare, the salt and fat in many dairy and meat products like cheese, salami and sausages are linked to many diseases including cancer, heart disease, strokes and diabetes, and the NHS currently advises people to cut down on red and processed meat. Changes needed in the food industry therefore include restricting harmful agricultural practices, planting more trees and reducing deforestation, moving towards a plant-based diet, reducing food waste and preventing overfishing and wildlife trading. Laws to encourage and enforce these changes need to be reinforced with economic incentives, such as subsidies for sustainable foods and taxes on the meat and dairy industry, particularly the most harmful forms of production.
2020 is a year that will go down in history, not just from fighting a global virus but as a year that was pivotal for social and economic change. We find ourselves now in circumstances that no one could have predicted at the beginning of the year. The crisis has highlighted our vulnerability as individual beings and the importance of strong collective action. The recent racial justice movement has brought many, festering issues about inequality and poverty to the surface.
The way to change the future is by our present actions, and we must take the opportunity and act before it is too late. It is paramount that everyone starts to see that our climate is not a topic only for hippie-dippies or outliers. It is tied inextricably to health, poverty and equality.
After lockdown, the choice is ours. We can return to the old normal. Emissions will bounce back and the planet will deteriorate just as before. Or we can choose to use 2020 as a turning point where we listened to the world and changed the systems in which we live. Such a choice would make this dramatic year one that is remembered as the year when we listened to the wakeup call we needed; as the year when we chose to transform our world for the better.
