Coronavirus and the Climate The pandemic shows the limits of what countries will endure to reduce emissions. Walter Russel Mead
https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-and-the-climate-11592235174?mod=opinion_featst_pos3
As Covid-19 continues to disrupt the world economic and political order, the global climate-change movement faces a choice: Learn the lessons of the pandemic or fail.
On the one hand, the lockdowns in response to Covid-19 led to the sharpest reduction in emissions on record, with 2020 global CO2 emissions projected to fall by nearly 8% compared with 2019, according to the International Energy Agency. According to the United Nations Environment Program, that tracks almost exactly with what’s needed. UNEP estimates that emissions will need to fall by 7.6% year after year from 2020 through 2030 if the world is to have any chance of keeping the average temperature from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.
As environmentalist group Extinction Rebellion co-founder Clare Farrellwrote in April, “the things we were told we simply can’t change when we were on the streets last year are perfectly possible (necessary!) to change if we decide to prioritise. Coronavirus is showing us what’s possible, at least.”
Yet Ms. Farrell warned against premature celebrations. “People are using this crisis to celebrate the fall in emissions when the truth is, they will need to drop way more than coronavirus has caused them to if we’re to stand a chance.”
It’s actually even worse. Most of the measures that led to the drop in emissions aren’t economically sustainable. The economic damage inflicted by lockdowns has been so savage that political leaders around the world are pushing to reopen their economies as the pandemic continues to rage. It’s hard to imagine that countries would put themselves through this much disruption and pain to stave off future threats to the planet.
Even a wealthy country like the U.S. can’t afford an indefinitely extended shutdown. In countries like India, Pakistan, Russia, Egypt, Mexico and Brazil, authorities have lifted restrictions even as the pandemic spreads. As Indonesia’s Coordinating Minister for Economic Affairs Airlangga Hartato said, “We cannot stay at home until next year. There will be more people hungry, and they will become angry.”
“We have to head toward the new normality because the national economy and the well-being of the people depends on it,” says Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador. Or as Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khanwrote on Twitter, “We sought a total lockdown without thinking about the consequences for the daily wage earners, the street vendors, the laborers, all of whom face poverty and hunger. . . . May Allah forgive us.”
That’s the bad news. But there is good news too: Not all the changes that need to be made will feel to the public like sacrifices.
Covid has demonstrated that the U.S. can get by with a much smaller rush hour. As many as 62% of Americans have jobs that can be done remotely; if most of those workers came in only three or fewer times a week, the world would be a healthier and happier place. Even employees who still need to commute would benefit, as reducing peak travel means faster commutes for everyone.
Yes, there is no substitute for face-to-face interaction, and, yes, few institutions and offices can go wholly remote. But tens of thousands of companies went about their normal business during the pandemic with an ease and even a flair that would have been impossible 20 years ago.
Commuting is among the greatest inconveniences of modern life, with the average American losing 99 hours a year to traffic congestion. Some find ways to use the delays productively, but on the whole this is lost time. Researchers say that long commutes reduce job and life satisfaction, are associated with increased stress and depression, and both decrease work attendance and reduce productivity. Commuting parents lose time with their children. Young families, who must often live at great distances from central cities to find affordable houses, are particularly affected. Older employees, who might still go on working otherwise, can be forced to retire earlier because of the physical demands of the commute. The disabled are shut out of many professional opportunities. Poorer people often have the longest and most difficult commutes.
Traffic congestion is a global problem, and it is much worse in many developing countries than in the U.S. Cities like Rio de Janeiro, Istanbul, Bogatá and São Paulo are much worse off than New York. These cities and many more can benefit from promoting telework to reduce commute time and congestion, and they can do it on their own without foreign aid.
A campaign to “cut the commute” globally won’t solve the climate problem. Eighteen percent of emissions world-wide are due to road transportation, and cutting that by even 25% a year would be only 4.5%, a bit over half the 7.6% annual cut in emissions recommend by UNEP.
But it is a start, and it points to the path the climate movement must travel if it hopes to succeed. The pandemic has taught the world that the human capacity for sacrifice, even in the face of grave danger, has limits. This is an inconvenient truth that the climate movement cannot afford to ignore.
Comments are closed.
