We are still facing Covid 19 and its impacts, although possibly beginning to see it off. But what’s next? Is there worse to come, as some say, with climate change ramping up and then biosystem collapse following in train? Can we avoid all of that? Covid19 had major health impacts with more to come. Our responses to it also had major impacts - including a reduction in economic activity and travel, so emissions fell for a while. But not for long- that was only a blip. They went back up.
Nevertheless, for a while, big lifestyle changes were forced on some of us - flying almost stopped, driving fell back dramatically, so did the use of public transport. Many people stopped working or worked from home. Much of the non-food retail & leisure sector fell silent. Most of that recovered or will do, though public transport may not. Indeed it may be a long term looser, with car use booming again. Some recovery stimulus measures were ‘green’- renewable energy being a (re) growth area, but long term the net positive changes may have mostly been minimal. Certainly the short term gains were small and some have not been hopeful about the future, unless we changed track.
As Climate change hits us more it does seem obvious that we will need a lot more action on all fronts. The changes in economic activity during Covid 19, in relation to reduced air transport especially, were an example of what may be needed- but they would have to be maintained permanently. Indeed, the DNV GL consultancy said that, to limit climate change to safe levels, the energy and emission reductions due to the coronavirus crisis achieved in 2020 need to repeated every year from now on. However, many people still don’t recognise the dangers of climate change- they’re still sometimes seen as uncertain/long term. But at least technologically the way ahead does seem clear, with renewables and improved efficiency in energy use helping to cut emissions.
Biosystem collapse
Will that be enough? Probably not. We may need more. Eco-doom has been long predicted. We are destroying the planet’s life and its support systems and biodiversity, but despite repeated urgent warnings and new examples of impacts (micro plastics is the latest) we are still mostly complacent/bored – the problems and the changes needed to avoid them are often too big to take in. And some are disputed. Ehrlich is back, doomier than ever on global population, but there are rival views- for example some look to a big demographic crisis. While other think we face an affluence problem.
The bottom line may be a need to cutback on growth of all types, but it is still unclear how much and how quickly- and how to make it happen. Some say the fault is deep in human nature – we are greedy and careless. Naomi Klein produced a useful counter to that: ‘We often hear climate change blamed on ‘human nature’, on the inherent greed and short-sightedness of our species. Or we are told we have altered the earth so much and on such a planetary scale that we are now living in the Anthropocene – the age of humans. These ways of explaining our current circumstances have a very specific, if unspoken meaning: that humans are a single type, that human nature can be essentialised to the traits that created this crisis. In this way, the systems that certain humans created, and other humans powerfully resisted, are completely let off the hook. Capitalism, colonialism, patriarchy – those sorts of system. Diagnoses like this erase the very existence of human systems that organised life differently: systems that insist that humans must think seven generations in the future; must be not only good citizens but also good ancestors; must take no more than they need and give back to the land in order to protect and augment the cycles of regeneration. These systems existed and still exist, but they are erased every time we say that the climate crisis is a crisis of ‘human nature’ and that we are living in the ‘age of man’. (LRB Vol. 38 No. 11 · 2 June 2016)
So it is in our power to change the way we act on and in the world. The big issue is will we? And in time to avoid elimination of humans as an irritant in the ecosystem? Some are hopeful that we can choose a better way forward. But it may be hard to avoid conflict. China may become the dominant power economically, having weathered Covid better than the US. And it may take the lead in terms of new technology deployment - despite resistance from the USA and UK and now also possibly India.
That type of global technology-based rivalry is part of parcel of the hyper-competitive global market system that we have created, based on ever-expanding economic growth. We have to do better than that. We may need big changes, in terms of consumption, on a similar scale to those adopted during the C19 lockdown, and possibly well beyond that, as well as changes in terms of political structures, markets and trade priorities and policies. Change is getting urgent, responding to climate change in particular: although it was vital to do, dealing with Covid has sidetracked us, and absorbed a lot of effort and resources. It also meant that the next meeting of the UN’s COP 26 climate change policy conference was postponed a year, with some key inputs also maybe being delayed. And C19 is not beaten yet- and it is still expanding in some parts of the world. With the global economy also weakened, it may not be in a good state to deal with the next possibly even bigger crisis. Nevertheless some do see hope for the future, a new way forward. We have made some good progress with renewables, and more seems possible. Obviously there is much more to do. But what other option do we have than to hope for the best and try to make it happen?
In that context, take a look at Kim Stanley Robinson’s new Science fiction book 'The Ministry of the Future' which explores what can be done to go faster and further than the current UNFCCC/COP programme. It’s fascinating. Though it is well to be a little cautious about what can be done. The overall impact of Covid 19-related energy use reductions on the rise of climate related emissions has been low.
Comments
Post a Comment