Reading Time: 8 minutes

COVID-19’s biggest victim: The Environment

Skies over Beijing have appeared blue for the first time in a long time.  

We see images of improved air quality over northern Italy gracing our tv and mobile screens lately.  

While the word about the clearer waters of the canals of Venice and the decline in global carbon dioxide emissions circulates around, the facile environment enthusiasts breathe a sigh of relief and the bohemian spirits chant wisdom of mother earth healing itself in face of the epidemic.  

Global climate advocates, however, abstain from indulging in such ideas. They are too busy quivering at the realization of the possible derailment of major efforts to combat global warming. Global warming seems to have been pushed off the public agenda for years to come as the United Nations cancels a chain of climate change-related meetings. 

UN Secretary-General António Guterres warns, “We should not overestimate the fact that emissions have been reduced for some months. We will not fight climate change with the virus. It is important that all the attention that needs to be given to fight this disease does not distract us from the need to defeat climate change. 

Speaking after the publication of a World Meteorological Organization (WMO) update on global warming, which confirmed that 2019 was the hottest year on record, Guterres said, “Global heating is accelerating. We have no time to lose if we are to avert climate catastrophe. Let us have no illusions. Climate change is already causing calamity, and more is to come. 

Why is the virus detrimental to the environment? 

2020-A year pumped up to potentially define the climate change journey for decades to come. That was before the global pandemic of COVID-19 sidetracked the international fight against climate change to become the biggest health crisis the world has seen in decades.  

In addition to posing a threat to long-term climate action by undercutting global investment in clean energy and weakening corporate’s environmental will to reduce emissions, the virus has already disrupted efforts for climate change action in a multitude of ways. A series of crucial negotiations lined up before November the conference in Glasgow have been seriously jeopardized. The Glasgow conference aimed to serve as a precursor to the other global climate summits to determine the success of the Paris Agreement, an agreement that calls for participating countries to reduce their carbon footprint by reducing emissions in their countries.  

Before international travel came to a halt, policymakers from around the world, in hopes to bend the curve on world emissions planned to meet in person in a series of conferences to discuss implementable actions to bend the emission curves. In addition to other important conferences such as the World Oceans Summit in Japan and CERAWeek in Houston being canceled, these talks by the climate diplomacy have also been indefinitely tabled.  

Such conferences are crucial to follow through with because they usually have cumulative impacts in deciding what happens in decades-long cycles of conferences thereafter. Although a failure to hold such meetings seems irrelevant in the perilous times of today, these failures could inevitably lead to policymakers departing from important yearly or decade long goals of environmental conservation.  

It is difficult to argue against health and safety concerns; even if the meetings were to go on as planned, they would practically not even muster the least number of attendees. The option of rescheduling is also not feasible as rescheduling in these circumstances has proved hazardous in the past. We see this when, in hopes to secure a landmark deal by October, the Convention on Biological Diversity followed its commitment of holding a meeting, but changed the venue from China to Rome, only to have its delegates called back as the meeting progressed and the virus took a stronghold in Italy. Similar efforts have proved futile and pose a serious threat to safety and health in an already delicate environment. 

Where are we currently in this Environment Battle? 

The roadblocks in the next big environmental breakthrough have left climate policymakers to take drastic actions. They are hoping to gather public support and put pressure on their national governments, as they did in the past, to bring about development as big as the Paris Agreement.  The landmark climate deal calls for countries to keep temperatures from rising more than 2°C by 2100 and ideally by less than 1.5°C. 

We are already lagging on this target with the time window of 2100 closing in as well. Temperatures have already risen more than 1°C in a span of 4 years. The epidemic threatens to close the window for change furthermore, exacerbating the decade’s worth of challenges and setbacks in the struggle to counter climate change. “In many countries, the political conditions are not conducive to a strengthening of climate action,  says a former senior climate negotiator. “Coronavirus will make a bad situation worse.” 

It has been a while since we have seen an international breakthrough in climate discussions similar to the likes of the 2015 Paris Agreement. Even at a time such as 2015, when the world wasn’t battling a deadly virus and the fight for climate change was gaining supporters, it took a year or two of behind the scenes discussions and planning from climate influencers and policymakers around the world to fully realize the Paris Agreement. The bar was set when China and the U.S., the world’s largest contributors to emissions, took a pledge to work together to reduce emissions. This was the time when we saw countries being united for a common goal; we saw the vulnerable parties teaming together to counter environmental threats. France facilitated forming a fearsome coalition and coordinating the various demands of all the countries that gathered in Paris to help fight for the cause.  

Breakthroughs such as these require a proper schedule of conferences leading up to a global summit-naturally necessitating face to face meetings with all the involved parties. The world climate leaders are left in the lurch with the recent cancellations of all such gatherings.  

Abiding by schedules of meetings and conferences at a time like this will however do little to sway political attention towards the environment struggle as the fallout from the pandemic has disrupted entire economies and is currently distracting countries from making big promises to reduce their emissions. Bold climate operations demand outlay of political capital, and the world leaders, at least in the short-term, wish to use their political energy to uplift the economy in the aftermath of the disease.  

The Environment: Is it not a worthy cause anymore? 

The world seems to have taken a turn for the worst, and we are back to square one in convincing the public that the environment is still worth fighting for. Strengthening political will to reinforce climate action is not as incentivizing as burning fossil fuels to restart the global economy. Safety first is, naturally, the top priority for all economies, however, there is something to be said to whether or not the approach was taken by individual counties aligns with saving the environment. 

China, the world’s second-largest economy and largest emitter, experienced 25% lesser emissions in mid-February compared to just a few weeks earlier as the country’s industrial economy ground to a halt. The news soon came with a promise from Chinese leaders that they will provide a giant stimulus to restore growth in the country. It is important to bear in mind that in the past, these ‘stimulus’ actions have meant developing carbon-intensive infrastructure. Global climate experts wonder what will happen once the economy starts to rebound.  Energy experts predict that “economic growth will be an even higher priority in the months and years ahead as the government works to stabilize the economy in the face of the coronavirus. 

Rob Jackson, a professor of Earth system science at Stanford University and chair of the Global Carbon Project, mirrors this sentiment by saying that the virus will impede climate change action from industries and states despite the short-term drop in carbon emissions from the outbreak, “If the global economy crashes, emissions will drop short term as we produce fewer goods, but climate action will slow. Employment trumps environment in politics, Jackson said. “If companies are hurting, they may delay or even cancel climate-friendly policies that require investments upfront.” 

One such industry that has seen a dramatic decline in demand is the airline industry. The downturn in aviation, a segment that accounts for 2% to 3% of global carbon emissions has resulted in lower emissions in the short term as the virus spreads. It is expected that the demand will be restored as people resume air travel after international bans are lifted, but the industry has already cited financial instability from the pandemic to justify weakening or delaying environmental procedures in place to reduce emissions.  

Economic Growth and Environment does not seem to go  hand in hand 

The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that the majority of the world’s oil demand growth for 2021 will be wiped out as a result of the economic fallout of the pandemic. This would mean a massive decline in fossil fuel emissions which fester climate crisis. The Executive Director at IEA, Fatih Birol,  warns that unless governments take active measures to invest in an environmentally conscious manner to kickstart the global economy, the outbreak could actually result in a slowdown in the world’s clean energy transition. “There is nothing to celebrate in a likely decline in emissions driven by economic crisis because in the absence of the right policies and structural measures this decline will not be sustainable”, he said. 

“If the lesson learned is, let’s get back to the status quo ante, then [the virus] probably will slow down the energy transition,” author and climate activist Bill McKibben comments. If the lesson learned is, you have to take the physical world and its risks seriously, it could make governments more likely to move fast — especially since interest rates in much of the world are now effectively zero,  he said.  

The pandemic has festered fears of a global economic recession, leading to one of the sharpest oil price collapses in the last 30 years combined with the biggest stock plunge on Wall Street since the stock market crash in 1987. Such activity has made the world’s largest energy companies lose billions of dollars.  

The economic contagion provides the impetus to cease many multi-billion-dollar worth infrastructure projects aimed at averting the climate catastrophes by the end of the decade. According to a report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. 2020 could end up being the year in which for the first time since 1980, the world’s solar power growth falls instead of being stable or increasing. With forecasts for new solar power projects being slashed by 8%, the sales of electric vehicles are expected to stall as well.  Solar manufacturers across the world are reporting delays in production and project. Analysts are citing that green companies will potentially face higher costs for green manufacturers as global operations suffer. 

“For companies, the outbreak is already introducing doubt into renewable-energy global supply chains and challenging company balance sheets”, said Dr. Melissa Lott, a researcher at the Center of Global Energy Policy at Columbia University.  

Stimulating the economy and the environment at the same time 

The encouragement of economic growth does not necessarily have to come at the expense of the environment. The European Commission for example recently committed to an extensive $1 trillion Green Deal intended to reduce emissions and foster growth. While there are many climate measures who provide an exemplar for China to follow, that has successfully championed and provided “green” stimulus in periods of economic uncertainty, fulfilling the dual purpose of expanding and decarbonizing the economy is not as easy or not as guaranteed for the rest of the world.   

Birol comments, “We should not allow today’s crisis to compromise the clean energy transition. Global governments should use the economic stimulus packages which are being planned to help countries weather the downturn to invest in clean energy technologies. We have an important window of opportunity. Major economies around the world are preparing stimulus packages. A well-designed stimulus package could offer economic benefits and facilitate the turnover of energy capital which has huge benefits for the clean energy transition.” 

Lott takes this idea further by noting that “if economic stimulus packages drive money away from clean energy investments by infusing fossil fuels industries with short-term capital while ignoring clean energy supply chains … we could see a domino effect that would push us further away from our clean energy goals.” 

IEA has analyzed prior data to cite that around 70% of the world’s clean energy investments are government-driven, either through direct government finance or in response to policies such as subsidies or taxes with government fossil fuel subsidies totaling $400bn (£300bn) each year. 

IEA Head thereupon urges global governments to devote to energy efficiency measures, that although won’t be lucrative in the short-term while energy prices are low but would prove rewarding in the longer-term. He also urges global policymakers to avail the slump in global oil prices to slowly do away with fossil fuels subsidies, and instead employ them to boost healthcare spending. “These challenging market conditions will be a clear test for government commitments, he said. “But the good news is that compared to economic stimulus packages of the past we have much cheaper renewable technologies, have made major progress in electric vehicles, and there is a supportive financial community for the clean energy transition. If the right policies are put in place there are opportunities to make the best of this situation.”