Debapriya Mukherjee
Contd from prev issue
We need hope, and trust in each other, to tackle the climate crisis. World political leaders strongly advocate to follow the stipulated actions to prevent coronavirus epidemic but the same politicians attack scientific consensus on climate change because climate skeptics probably see substantial political and economic payoffs by delaying climate action.
The revival of the global economy after the pandemic may accelerate the emissions of planet-warming gases depending on the approach of world’s big economies to enact green growth policies or continue to use fossil fuel industries to overcome this economic recession that already spreads across the world due to the coronavirus pandemic. If political leaders or big companies focus on compensating their loss during the outbreak of this virus, It may pose a serious threat to long-term climate change action by compromising global investments in clean energy and weakening industry environmental goals to reduce emissions.
Thereby coronavirus is not the only global crisis, we are also facing the climate crisis that is expected to be more devastating. Most importantly the response to the two crisis is starkly different though the climate crisis is structurally very similar to the coronavirus crisis. Both are characterized by an escalating probability of disaster. In the case of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus is due to the nature of contagion and it is transmitted from each patient to more than one person and so rates of infection tend to accelerate. In the case of climate change, the increased risk of initiating feedback loops, which amplify the warming trend and crossing tipping points as global temperatures rise have the same effect. Tackling either problem will disrupt lifestyles of people in a number of ways, some of which are quite similar – consider the drastic rise in staycations elicited by the coronavirus crisis. In both cases there is a coordination problem: the efforts of any one individual will achieve nothing to mitigate the risk unless accompanied by efforts from many others.
At the same time, we cannot expect the similar response despite similarities of the two crisis because the response to the coronavirus crisis has arguably been far greater than the response to the climate crisis.
Coronavirus is a recent, self-evident and rapidly escalating threat. Each day brings new evidence of the direct consequences of the outbreak, and these consequences are rapidly moving closer to home.
Climate change is the evident of floods, hurricanes, forest fires, and extreme weather events that have become more frequent and severe over the years. Although climate change draws passionate discussions in many forums, there is inadequate public clamor for immediate action. The policy lethargy and behavioral inertia are the major cause of inaction to climate change. Its effects are not always immediate and visible. Many individuals probably do not see a clear link between their actions and the eventual outcome. This reduces the willingness to alter lifestyles and tolerate personal sacrifices for the collective good. In contrast, Coronavirus is forcing an immediate policy response and behavioral changes. Its causality is clear and its onset quick.
Most countries have sincerely follows the regulations together on Coronavirus. Citizens also seem to be following the advice of public health officials. But surprising question is that this Coronavirus policy model can be applied to climate change? It may be mentioned that t policies that worked well for Coronavirus might not be effective for climate change. However steps taken to reduce the risk of coronavirus is obviously the cause of economic recession but these offer great opportunities to both reduce greenhouse gas emissions with simultaneous outcome of lower energy bills, better air quality and so on. People are well supportive of policies if they can explain the mechanism through which the policy operates.
There is a simple and intuitive mental model of how COVID-19 spreads (through people) and how we can stop its spread (keep infected people isolated). Thereby communication appears to be key. Creating intuitive mental models and apt metaphors to explain the link between our consumer behavior, carbon emissions and a changing climate is a tall order. But if advocacy and lobby groups can do so, it might facilitate a sense of responsibility and agency. Of course there must be political will.
The writer cam be reached at
[email protected]