The Conversation - Eric Galbraith | Ross Otto
 |
| A highway exchange stands empty of traffic after the government implemented restrictions to prevent the spread of the new coronavirus in Lima, Peru, on March 18, 2020. Does the global response to COVID-19 suggest there’s hope for climate action? AP Photo/Rodrigo Abd |
- Eric Galbraith is Professor of Earth System Science, McGill University
- Ross Otto is Assistant Professor of Psychology, McGill University
|
In the past few weeks, governments around the world have enacted dramatic measures to mitigate the threat of COVID-19.
It’s too soon to know whether these measures will prove too little to
limit mass mortality, or so extreme that they set off economic
catastrophe. But what is absolutely clear is that the pandemic response
is in stark contrast to the lack of effective action on climate change,
despite a number of similarities between the two threats.
The alarms for both COVID-19 and climate change were sounded by
experts, well in advance of visible crises. It is easy to forget, but at
the time of this writing, the total deaths from COVID-19 are
less than 9,000 — it is the terrifying computer model
predictions of much larger numbers that have alerted governments to the need for swift action, despite the disruption this is causing to everyday life.
Yet computer models of climate change also predict a steady march of increasing deaths, surpassing
250,000 people per year within two decades from now.
As scientists who have studied climate change and the psychology of
decision-making, we find ourselves asking: Why do the government
responses to COVID-19 and climate change — which both require making
difficult decisions to avert future disasters — differ so
dramatically? We suggest four important reasons.
Instinctive fear
First, COVID-19 is deadly in a way that is frightening on an instinctive, personal level. People react
strongly to mortal threats, and although the virus appears to have much
lower mortality for otherwise healthy people under 60, those statistics do not quell universal personal safety fears.
The rapid bombardment of vivid detail we receive about infections,
overburdened hospitals and deaths further amplifies our personal
assessment of risk.
Climate change has the potential to end up killing more people than
COVID-19 in the long run, but the deaths are one step removed from
carbon emissions, appearing instead as an
increased frequency of “natural disasters.”
And the slow timescale of climate change — an incremental ratcheting up of global temperatures — allows our
expectations to continually adjust as the situation gradually worsens.
The abstract connections between emissions and these mortal dangers
prevents global climate change from achieving the urgency that the virus
has, making everyone more reluctant to accept difficult policy choices.
Fast-moving threat
Second, COVID-19 is a new threat that exploded into the global
consciousness with obvious urgency while climate change has been on the
radar for decades.
The consequences of inaction on COVID-19 loom on a timescale of weeks
rather than decades away for climate change — this is not a problem
for future generations, but for everyone living now. The slow, creeping
awareness of the climate change threat also allowed the parallel
development of professional skeptics,
funded by the fossil fuel industry, who were amazingly effective at
sowing doubt on the science.
There was no time for vested interests to mount similar resistance to
COVID-19 policy, so governments seem to be acting on the advice of
health professionals for the public good.
Clear strategies
Third, officials from groups like the World Health Organization presented
coherent and immediately actionable paths
to slowing the spread of COVID-19. Governments were given a
straightforward priority list of compelling their citizens to wash more,
stop touching, reduce travel and go into some degree of isolation.
 |
| Park-goers, most of them self-isolating, walk in at Camden Hills State Park on March 18, 2020, in Camden, Maine. AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty |
In contrast, the space of possible solutions to climate change is
bewilderingly complex, and these solutions touch on nearly all aspects of modern life.
Even experts don’t agree on exactly what is the best way to bring
down carbon emissions while minimizing economic damage. This lack of
clarity has contributed to confusion and decision paralysis on the part
of policymakers.
Ability for nations go it alone
And, while responses to COVID-19 require close international
collaboration about public health directives, travel and borders,
individual nations can take effective action to slow the spread of
COVID-19 within their own borders. Even the smallest countries, like
Singapore, can ensure the safety of their citizens by making an effective local response to COVID-19.
In contrast, stabilizing climate requires all nations to reduce their
emissions — going it alone doesn’t work. This co-ordination problem
may be the toughest hurdle of all when it comes to climate change. There
are
ideas of how the co-ordination problem could be addressed in stages, but they still require collaboration between an initial group of committed nations.
 |
| In this December 2019 photo, firefighters battle a bushfire in Australia. Dan Himbrechts/AAP Images via AP |
While the international response to COVID-19
has been criticized,
it still gives us hope that strong climate change policy can be
achieved if we manage to overcome the psychological handicaps that keep
governments complacent.
At this point, the policy changes required to mitigate climate change
appear far less disruptive — economically, socially and culturally —
than the measures being taken right now to tackle COVID-19.
In fact, carbon dioxide emissions could probably be brought down dramatically through gradual increases in a
global carbon price in ways that would be imperceptible in the daily lives of most people.
When the dust of COVID-19 settles, we should look back at this moment
as proof that our societies are not enslaved to fate, and find strength
in the demonstrated ability of modern societies to react to global
emergencies.
Links
