By Jennalynn Fung

The coronavirus is a tragedy. Let’s not allow climate change to have the same irreparable effects on humanity.

World nations have forced their citizens to stay at home, cities in the United States have gone on complete lockdown, and companies have shut down their warehouses and factories to protect their employees. Although these are the global initiatives world leaders have taken to safeguard their immediate communities against the COVID-19 pandemic (and rightly so), this very same protocol could be reimagined to fight against climate change. 

Remarkably, the coronavirus has had an unintended effect on global temperature; as major cities impose restrictions on what businesses can continue operating and who can go out for work, factories and coal plants have also come to a halt. Although the coronavirus is no solution to global warming or a reason to “celebrate” a decline in emissions, the connection between economic activity and global carbon dioxide emissions is indisputable, especially when one takes into consideration that a significant portion of all economic activity is intertwined with fossil fuel industries.  

There has been a sudden decrease in pollution following (and during) the enforcement of an indefinitely-lasting 24 hour curfew on residents in the State of California and the City of New York, much like the unprecedented reductions of energy use and emissions that occurred while China was in lockdown, among many of the other reductions in China’s energy use. 
According to CarbonBrief, in China, coal consumption at power plants decreased by 36%, satellite-based NO2 levels fell by 37%, and the utilization of oil refining capacity went down by 34%. All of it was enough to shave off one percent of China’s emissions in 2020.

Reductions are also being observed in Italy, which was the first country in Europe to “execute” a complete quarantine on civilians; as the COVID-19 pandemic becomes more serious in other countries, further decreases in emissions are likely to be seen. While there haven’t been any actual dolphins or returning of swans to Venice’s famous canals, the city’s Mayor’s Office stated that the water is in fact clearer. They reason that this is due to “...less traffic on the canals, allowing the sediment to stay at the bottom.” However, air quality has improved, similar to Los Angeles.

In addition to the significant lessening of fossil fuel and coal use, people have been flying (and traveling in general) less; the airline industry, which is responsible for 2.6% of global carbon dioxide emissions, has faced quickly diminishing crowds and empty airports as people make the conscious decision to stay home. It may take months before people return to travel, especially given the uncertainty that a vaccine will be developed sooner rather than later. 

As the nation shifts its daily routine to fight against the coronavirus and lower the curve, what does this say about the government’s ability to fight climate change? While plenty of cities and countries around the world have formally declared a climate emergency, the action that they have taken to address such is nowhere near the aggressive policies countries have mandated against the coronavirus. The slow, snail-like response to impending natural disasters is due to society’s foolish perception of climate change: it still seems like an issue that we have centuries to resolve or a problem that the next generation must come to terms with. 

How can we make the most of a society that has already been put on pause due to the pandemic, though? As banks plead with the federal government, so are airlines; as the industry reels from cancelled trips and fear surrounding travel, they beg the government for $50 billion dollars in aid. Daniel Rutherford, the program director for marine and aviation at the International Council on Clean Transportation, raised concerns that while it is important to save these jobs and prevent the possibility of a traumatic recession, “...air travel is eventually going to bounce back after this crisis subsides. And if the industry gets bailed out without any change the underlying status quo, we’re going to see emissions continue to rise in the years ahead.”  

This is what Senate Democrats and environmentalists are trying to address through a proposal; they want the travel industry to reduce their carbon footprint. Their letter to the House and Senate leadership stated: “If we give the airline and cruise industries assistance without requiring them to be better environmental stewards, we would miss a major opportunity to combat climate change and ocean dumping.” House Democrats are looking at clean-tech tax credits in terms of technological adaptations that airlines and similar groups can invest in over fossil fuels. 

Both demands have precedent; the Obama administration bailed out the auto industry (with $80 billion dollars) during the 2008 economic crisis, but under the condition that companies like Chrysler and General Motors would make improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency.

It’s unlikely that this missive (signed by eight Dems including Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Cory Booker of New Jersey) will pass due to Dems lacking power in the Senate and white House. Moreover, Democrats also do not want to be seen as slowing down any aid to the economy during this emergency.

It’s worth noting that while the COVID-19 pandemic is the only thing on newsfeeds and in headlines at the moment, climate change will make affluent diseases a normal thing. Dr. Enric Sala, a marine ecologist, believes that there will be more “...diseases like this [COVID-19] in [the] future if we continue our practices of destroying the natural world.” As humanity’s sphere of influence grows and tropical forests are cut down to make room for villages, that exposure to wild animals is just another opportunity/vector for viruses to make contact with humans and cause the next pandemic. COVID-19 and SARS came from “wet markets” where live animals are placed on top of each other; bodily fluids from one animal will fall onto the other, accumulating at the bottom.

But it isn’t just infectious disease outbreaks that are the result of the climate crisis. As the world continues to industrialize and pollute, the quality of our living (i.e. air and water) will decrease whilst diagnosis of heart disease, cancer, respiratory diseases and mental health impacts increase, most of which have already been witnessed in bouts of climate refugeeism and population displacement. 

The pandemic that we are caught in now is an awful, unprecedented tragedy; as of the 27th of March, there have been 24,883 reported deaths. The coronavirus must and should be addressed quickly because of the damage and danger it poses to our communities right now, but it is important to understand that a lack of action against climate change will likely lead to more health crises. The COVID-19 crisis shows the importance of listening to scientists and taking action early to protect people. While too many people have perished from COVID-19, there is reason to believe that even more will die from environmental catastrophes.

Once COVID-19 is controlled, we must start preparing for the next one. As epidemics like coronavirus and climate change are so closely intertwined, it is in our best interest to begin taking global warming and natural disasters seriously. Governments rightly and justifiably acted in a split second to preserve the health of their citizens and workers by shutting down whole metropolitan areas; society must begin to respond similarly to the climate crisis before our coasts are washed away while resources deplete and preventable violence ensues. We must all act before it is too late.