Reflecting on Climate Change Solutions During the Coronavirus Pandemic

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 started implementing “social distancing” measures.  Those able to work remotely moved workstreams online while other businesses closed, which sent unemployment claims into the stratosphere.  It feels like daily life changed long ago and all at once.  At EESI, we are asking ourselves what all of this means for climate change solutions. 

Just to clear this up right upfront, 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 here over the past several weeks (and over the past few months in other countries)—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.

But we can still derive lessons on governance in times of crisis from these difficult circumstances that should inform our response to climate change, which feels relatively less imminent even though it is just as urgent.

First, a swift, coordinated federal response informed by science 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 be 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, understood the science, accepted the need for certain precautions, calculated risks to themselves and others, and (for the most part) reacted accordingly.  That allows for more than a glimmer of optimism about our ability to reduce emissions and take steps to adapt and make ourselves—and our communities—more resilient. 

And looking forward, as 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.  Significant energy sector infrastructure investments on a national scale aimed at decarbonization would be a bargain because of almost-impossibly-low interest rates. And, as the economy begins to heal, this will create badly needed jobs across the clean energy sector for millions of employees. 

One does not have to look too hard to find links between the widely-varying responses to the pandemic around the country and the way that climate action has unfolded piecemeal in states and cities.  One major missing piece in both sets of efforts, of course, has been swift and decisive federal leadership to plan and implement a response.  That needs to change, and EESI has an important role to play: providing members of Congress and their staff with the information they need to make informed decisions to push ahead with climate policies. 

But what will force this realization?  How much more severe weather and sea-level rise do we need to endure before we decide to change our ways?  What more do policymakers have to hear before they take the risks of climate change seriously enough to act?  We need to ensure that 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 to protect untold numbers of lives and livelihoods.

 

Author: Daniel Bresette