2020-05-04
The contrasting responses of the Australian Government, and many other governments for that matter, to COVID-19 and climate change
By Chris Johansen, GI Co-editor
I have been absolutely gobsmacked by this contrasting emergency response and am still trying to seek answers in explaining it. Well, here goes, with a summary of my understanding so far.
During March and April we have had our senior politicians at both federal and state level boldly announcing increasingly draconian measures to restrict the spread of this coronavirus, and threateningly warning of dire consequences if we don’t abide by these measures. Fair enough in view of the circumstance even if, globally, authorities have been too slow off the mark to slow this virus in its tracks, i.e. “flatten the curve”. When making these announcements, our political leaders have had medical experts (e.g. Chief Medical Officer) by their side, and often in front of the microphone, in an attempt to give credibility to the threat and justification to the drastic action required. The politicians emphasize that whatever they are doing is based on extensive consultation with, and religiously adhering to the advice of, these medical experts. Basically, as it should be when thrust into such an emergency.
By contrast, an unfolding climate emergency has been warned of by climate experts for decades. But I’m not aware of any instance of any government politician, Coalition or Labor, on the same stage with a climate expert and using them to give credibility to pleas for increased climate action. Can you image our PM, standing alongside climate experts like Will Stefan and Tim Flannery and drawing upon their advice of what to do about climate change – one of the first actions of the incoming Abbott Government in 2013 was too unceremoniously sack these guys.
The unprecedented bushfires this summer did evoke an admission from our PM that climate change may have had something to do with it, although he would not admit to anthropogenic climate change as this would upset his fossil fuel friends and denialist comrades. Actually, both the Coalition and Labor in effect remain in denial of an unfolding climate emergency as evidenced by their unabated support for the burning of fossil fuels. Apart from their umbilical ties to the fossil fuel industry conservative politicians and the people they represent basically believe that rapid changes from the status quo (e.g. to renewable energy) are wrong (although rapidly increasing personal bank balances well beyond their status quo seem acceptable!).
It seems that people’s vested interest in prolonging greenhouse gas emitting practises and basic conservatism inhibit their ability to perceive time scales into the future. Humans are unique among life forms in being able to consider wide time scales – history and projections into the future (as in science fiction). But we really don’t know as we haven’t worked out a way of asking other life forms (e.g. fellow primates) if they can do it. Nevertheless, like all life forms we have evolved just to respond the here and now – to procure food for our day-to-day survival, to avoid swimming where sharks abound, etc. Some people, particularly conservative ones, gravitate towards the here and now rather than thinking things through well into the future.
Viral pandemics are relatively short-term events, involving an exponential increase in infections to reach a peak and then a decline as spread of the pathogen is brought under control and the population develops resistance, through increasing natural immunity or enhanced immunity by introduction of a vaccine. All of this usually happens within a period of two years or so. Most people can readily understand this curve and thus know what has to be done. They can see the light at the end of the tunnel, based on the history of previous pandemics (e.g. Spanish flu, SARS, etc.). The usually rapid onset of the pandemic, coming out of the blue, primes people for drastic, extraordinary action.
By contrast, it is much more difficult to comprehend the climate change curve and its effects over time on human well-being. We are just at the beginning of an exponential phase of increasing detrimental effects, which will accelerate as feedback mechanisms, like methane release from melting permafrosts, disruptions of weather patterns, wildfires, sea level rise, etc., kick in. But this curve is not likely to peak and progress with a mirror image decline back to “normality”, like a pandemic curve. It is more likely to just keep on increasing to the ever-worsening detriment of humanity and most life forms. There can be no vaccine developed for climate change, like it can be for a virus eventually causing that pathogen to fade into insignificance.
We know what to do to manage a viral pandemic, basically social distancing and developing effective antibiotics or a vaccine. And we are now in the process of doing it, with a majority of the population on board. Similarly, we know how to absolutely flatten the climate change curve, to stop it in its tracks. We even now know that most of what we do to reduce emissions and sequester carbon will leave us economically better off in the mid- to long-term, even if we have some upfront expenditure for the transition.
Apart from the confirmed neo-liberal adherents, why is much of the population so hesitant to treat climate change as an emergency, like COVID-19? Several reasons. Due to the slow moving onset of climate change, and the probability that mass global disruption is perhaps decades away, many people regard climate change in the abstract. It may not directly affect them in immediate future or even in their lifetime, so why worry unduly about it? It is also difficult for most people to directly attribute any one environmental disaster (e.g. fire, drought, storm) to climate change as there are usually several possible contributing factors (for a pandemic the cause is narrowed down to one, well-defined pathogen). People are usually not willing to invest in an upfront cost aimed at mitigating climate change unless they can see a clear pathway for return on investment. Further, when faced with projections of catastrophe into the indefinite future, most people develop a feeling of helplessness, and just turn off from contemplating it. Reinforcing this reluctance of the public to support climate action is neo-liberal control of much of the media and polity.
Earlier this year, and in the wake of the bushfire season, climate activists locally and globally were ramping up actions to try and stimulate the public to greater awareness. This has now been completely overwhelmed by the pandemic crisis – bringing to reality the now-famous words of our PM during the bushfire season: “this is not the time to be talking about climate change”. Agreed, but the problem is still going to be there once the pandemic subsides. At least we can adjust our climate change strategies in the light of the pandemic.
Public messaging around the pandemic is made fairly straight forward due to the relatively simple conceptual model of a virus outbreak and what to do about it. Of course, climate change, its risks and what to do about it, is much more complex. However, we can learn from the coronavirus messaging on how to simplify the climate message – clearer explanation of the risks, the probability of their intensity and timing of occurrence, the business case for rapid action, etc. Definitely a daunting task but an essential one if we are to motivate the public to realistic action.
Actually, the resultant economic disruption from COVID-19 presents opportunities to address climate change. The Government is now injecting vast amounts of money into the economy, basically to maintain minimal incomes and stimulate spending in the retail sector once lockdowns can be eased. Fine, but what about boosted infrastructure spending, as was done during previous recessions (e.g. the Depression, Global Financial Crisis)? In particularly, now is an opportunity to boost renewable energy infrastructure, such as network upgrades, providing many jobs and smoothing our transition into a renewable energy future. Of course, the present Government is not likely to do this due to their allegiance to fossil fuels. An opportunity lost soon after it became apparent.
Although the negative socio-economic consequences due to COVID-19 are yet to play out, it may have some potentially useful consequences for action on climate change, whenever that activity can resume. The massive economic slowdown will reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally, and from Australia, during 2020. This may compensate for the massive emissions during Australia’s bushfires of the recent summer, which amount to more than the country’s average annual emissions over recent years. Many existing and planned fossil fuel ventures were on shaky economic ground before the pandemic. It is likely that many will fall over, never to recover – e.g. Origin Energy have just pulled out of gas fracking in the Northern Territory. Although the recent bushfire emergency has enhanced realization of many Australians of the concept of “climate emergency” (not such a radical concept after all), this pandemic will no doubt further alert people to what an “emergency” is really like. Thus it may become a little easier than it has been so far to convince the populace about the ongoing climate emergency and the sort of action required to flatten its exponentially increasing curve.
Header picture: Image of COVID-19 (Credit CSIRO) and Earth from one million miles away as seen by NASA's Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite.
[Opinions expressed are those of the author and not official policy of Greens WA]