Post-virus Futures

We have just shut down much of the words economic and industrial system. For the moment, for most of us, the emphasis is just on survival in the lock down, but we do need to look ahead to how things might be after the terrible crisis is over- and when the world economy is at least partly restarted.

Quite apart from the tragic loss of life and social dislocation, it will take a while for the world to recover from Covid 19, and it may never do so entirely. Indeed, some see the virus as leading to major changes, although with some of them hopefully being environmentally positive.  For example, we have now seen how life looks with fewer planes, cars and less pollution, so will we really be happy just to revert back to old-style transport and energy systems? Especially since we have also learnt to do more things, both work and play, on line. For example, the increase in online events reportedly cut emissions by 99%, by eliminating the need to travel.  That may be a one-off (large public events will no doubt return), but the switch to home working may be longer lasting.  Grist suggested that ‘employers that never thought remote work was a viable option might well embrace it after seeing their businesses continue to function with a distributed workforce. And if the economy tanks, companies will need to cut costs — possibly by shedding office space and eliminating lease payments. If these practices end up persisting, it would mean lower carbon emissions- fewer commutes, less business travel, smaller offices to heat and air-condition.’

Are there other indications of how the brave new world that might emerge will be? In terms of travel, it’s probably safe to say cruise liner holidays will fall in popularity, but will cheap flights also be shunned – if the aviation industry revives? And what of petrol/diesel cars- have we now had enough of them? EVs are popular, but not that popular, and most people may want to get back on the move by any means possible. And oil prices have been pushed down dramatically by the lockdown…

Some nevertheless look to the eventual post-lockdown restart as an opportunity to do it all right, with attempts already being made to include support for environmental/climate policy as part of the government stimulus packages being introduced to rescue industry from the impacts of the Covid 19 shut downs. That’s led to some battles, with, for example, airlines asking for exemptions and special treatment in relation to planned emission controls, but also meeting strong opposition and calls for tighter conditions. It’s been the same in relation to cars too – the hard hit auto industry has been pleading for delays in planned emission controls to help them recover, but that may fall on deaf ears.

Moving beyond transport, the hospitality sector has been hit in a major way, with most tourism dead in the water and entertainment venues shut.  Retail also, with most non-food shops shut. Industry has also been hit, with the lock downs denuding it of workers, and most ‘non-essential’ production halted. So, with production volumes falling, energy use and emissions fell. Combined emissions from industrial processes, manufacturing and construction typically made up 18.4% of global anthropogenic emissions pre-Covid19.  The financial crash of 2008-09 led to an overall dip in emissions of 1.3%. But this quickly rebounded by 2010 as the economy recovered, leading to an all-time emissions high. Will it be the same with Covid 19? A bounce back? And if so where?  China, as the first in, has emerged from the lock down first, and its economy and emissions may boom again. Others may follow. South Korea, which managed to avoid a high death rate, may be well placed too.  The USA maybe not so.  So there may be winners and losers, but, certainly, overall, a very big economic shock. The WTO says 2020 world trade will fall by 13-32%, depending on how long the lockdowns lasts. 

However, unless the lock downs are prolonged, the net positive climate-impact globally may nor be very significant. Some say there may be just a short term blip,  a brief, small fall in emissions, before emissions get back to ‘normal’. Others have a more positive view: emissions have fallen rapidly in some sectors, and we should avoid going back to where we were. Certainly some say the Covid 19 crisis & climate crisis are part of the same thing, rapacious economic growth, and show that radical change is needed: ‘The need for more natural resources has forced humans to encroach on various natural habitats and expose themselves to yet unknown pathogens... The origin of the virus makes it a perfect example of how the way capitalism commodifies life to turn it into profit can directly endanger human life. In this sense, the ongoing pandemic is the product of unrestrained capitalist production & consumption patterns and is very much part of the deleterious environmental changes it is causing’. So we need to act on both.

So where are we headed?

Some of the possible social and political outcomes of the Covid 19 crisis have been mapped out well by Simon Mair, ranging from centralised state capitalism and state socialism to anarchic barbarism and decentral co-operative mutualism, depending on the scale of the social and economic impacts. But what about the technological outcomes, and specifically, on the assumption that climate change is still also a key focus, renewable energy development?

At this stage it’s hard to say which way it will all go, but their expansion, already constrained by disruptions to global supply chains and project execution, is likely to be further slowed by weakened post-Covid national and global economies. In the new low-growth economy that may emerge, it could be that, since emissions would be lower, renewables will be seen as less urgent. Nevertheless, it is interesting that, in response to Covid 19, many hundreds of billions have be rapidly found to revamp national economies and a form of ‘war socialism’ or even ‘communism’ has been adopted, including furloughed workers’ wages being paid by the state, while some companies have been asked to produce ventilators. Full socialisation of production is not yet on the cards, but in terms of investment in Covid-responses, huge amounts have been forthcoming, much more than Corbyn in the UK and Sanders in the USA  envisaged for their transformative green new deals.

The problem is that a lot of money will have been spent on coping with Covid 19, and protecting jobs, and there may not be enough for much of a positive post-Covid 19 stimulus programme-  including a switch to renewables. So the transition may be slowed – unless renewables are seen as cheaper options. That isn’t unrealistic. Renewable costs are falling rapidly in many cases. But the transition will still add some costs in the short term. There’s no way to avoid it- the pandemic will make most of it harder. About the best that can be said is that it may act as a ‘dress rehearsal’ for full-on climate change. However not everyone sees climate action being spurred by Covid 19: the threat that climate change presents isn’t usually seen as immediate and urgent as that from Covid 19.  Certainly, for the moment we still have to make it through to the other side of that, and that could be months away.