The Parallels between Tackling COVID-19 and Climate Change

The immediate urgency of the coronavirus pandemic is causing many climate change and clean energy advocates to wonder what our response to this public health crisis tells us about our ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to a warmer planet. Just about one month ago, the D.C. metropolitan region was implementing “social distancing” and businesses able to work remotely were moving operations and work streams online. Those unable to work remotely had to close, which sent unemployment into the stratosphere. It feels like daily life changed long ago and all at once. Reading this means you are probably wondering what all this means for climate change. We are, too.

There is no cheer in these words or a suggestion that the coronavirus outbreak is in any way “good” for climate change. Everything about it is just awful. What has happened over the past several weeks—and what will happen over the next several months in the United States and abroad—is a catastrophe of suffering and loss and a source of profound sadness.

There are, however, some very unsettling parallels between the steps taken and those not taken in the weeks leading up to the first confirmed case in the United States, when a coordinated federal response would have made a big difference. Most disappointing was (is?) the denialism of many in federal leadership roles and their dismissal of the science-based arguments of public health experts. When our country needed thoughtful planning and honest assessments of the risks of the novel coronavirus, White House officials were asserting with absolute confidence and zero evidence that the disease was contained, investors should “buy the dip,” cases would soon decrease to none, and cures were just around the corner.

While the White House stood by, in another parallel with climate change action, states and cities stepped up and began to take the serious and prudent actions that may well have seemed like “too much” at the time. But they pressed ahead because they let themselves be honest about the prospects of an outbreak. As the threat turned into reality, California, Washington, Ohio, New York, Virginia, D.C., Maryland (where I live), and many other jurisdictions developed and implemented science-based public health policy responses. But the overall reaction was uneven, as states and cities made decisions without the benefit of federal leadership and coordination.

Now state and local efforts appear to be making a positive impact even as deaths and hospitalizations continue to take a terrible toll on health care professionals. The Federal Reserve took a series of unprecedented monetary policy moves to do its part to protect the economy from total collapse. And Congress has already provided three emergency relief packages (with another one or two to follow).

So what does all of this mean for climate change solutions? That is a difficult question to answer. Yet a few things seem clear. First, a coordinated federal response is critical. Monetary policy and after-the-fact emergency relief can help, but nothing is a substitute for leadership and planning while climate mitigation is still possible.

Second, states, and local governments are likely to remain pace-setters and sources of creative ideas. Different jurisdictions took different steps at different times during the outbreak, which informed later decisions (and should have led to better-informed federal action).

And third, an important reason why states and local governments are reporting progress is because their residents took the advice of experts and followed the cues of gubernatorial and mayoral leadership. People heard the facts, respected the science, understood the need for certain precautions, calculated risks to themselves and others, and reacted accordingly. That allows for more than a glimmer of optimism about our ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and take steps to adapt and make ourselves—and our communities—more resilient.

But what will force this realization? How much more severe weather and sea level rise do we need to endure before we change our ways? What more do policymakers have to hear before they take the risks of climate change seriously enough to act? I hope the lesson of the coronavirus outbreak does not turn out to be that we can only respond to climate change after it is too late.

And looking forward, as Congress reacts and the fiscal policy response turns from emergency relief to stimulus, increased funding for new and existing policies and programs that deliver emissions reductions is an obvious starting point. Such policies also need to feature job creation and workforce development as a centerpiece. Significant energy sector infrastructure investments on a national scale aimed at decarbonization would be a bargain because of almost-impossibly-low interest rates. EESI will be part of that conversation, adding value, facts, and ideas from our research and our network of state and local leaders who have valuable and relevant experiences to share with policymakers on Capitol Hill.

Author: Daniel Bresette, EESI Executive Director