Responses to Covid-19 and to Environmental Destruction

[DynamicSpirit]

Just thinking about (a) how Governments have responded to Covid-19, and (b) how Governments have responded over the years to climate change, biodiversity loss and environmental destruction.

As a result of Covid-19, Governments have imposed dramatic lifestyle changes on almost all of us, with only a few days or weeks notice. These changes will massively depress our and most other countries' GDPs and are already causing millions of people to lose their jobs - and most people seem to accept that is a reasonable price to pay for preventing Covid-19 deaths.

That stands in stark contrast with climate change, for which the response for many years has been one of too little, with the argument continually made that you can't expect people to change their lifestyles, and we can't afford to damage the economy in order to protect the environment. Yet it seems to me that, on any rational long-term assessment, the devastation that would be caused by not taking tough action on climate change, plastic pollution and biodiversity loss etc. is far, far, greater than the devastation that would have been caused by Covid-19 (awful though Covid-19 potentially is), and the lifestyle changes required to bring environmental damage within manageable levels are far less than those currently being imposed for Covid-19 (although would last longer).

So why the difference? Does this expose double standards? Surely, if we can change our lifestyles to prevent Covid-19 causing millions of deaths Worldwide, we can also change our lifestyles to a smaller extent to 'save the planet'?

 

[westv]

The difference is that one is temporary and the other isn't.

 

[notlob.divad]

It is the short term nature of the virus that casues Politicians to act. In really really crude terms (and I am sorry for that but it is the only way to express it), they don't want the bodies stacking up on their watch. With climate change the bodies will be stacking up on someone else's watch way in to the future. With this they are stacking up today.

 

[Garmoran]

It is the short term nature of the virus that casues Politicians to act. In really really crude terms (and I am sorry for that but it is the only way to express it), they don't want the bodies stacking up on their watch. With climate change the bodies will be stacking up on someone else's watch way in to the future. With this they are stacking up today.

And, to be fair, not just the politicians are at fault. Most of the population can't be even bothered to work out what should go in their recycle bin.

 

[Meerkat]

Look how many people can’t be bothered with taking precautions that might save their own life or that of people close to them. They aren’t likely to be willing to suffer major changes for something that might happen to people a hundred years down the line

 

[yorkie]

Surely, if we can change our lifestyles to prevent Covid-19 causing millions of deaths Worldwide, we can also change our lifestyles to a smaller extent to 'save the planet'?

The temporary lifestyle changes which are for an immediate issue are not comparable with permanent lifestyle changes for a longer term issue in my opinion.

 

[ChrisC]

And, to be fair, not just the politicians are at fault. Most of the population can't be even bothered to work out what should go in their recycle bin.

I agree that many people perhaps can’t be bothered to work out what should go in their recycle bin. However, it is not always a matter of can’t be bothered to work it out, but more a matter of it being so complicated and people can’t understand. I’m very keen that everything possible should go in the recycle bin but the instructions from my local council, especially regarding plastics, are so complicated. I just cannot work out for sure which plastic food containers, cartons and pots can go in the recycling bin and which can’t. If I can’t work it out as a fairly well educated person, no wonder my 85 year old mother with dementia puts so many things in the wrong bin and I end up having to remove things for the other bin!

 

[scotrail158713]

I agree that many people perhaps can’t be bothered to work out what should go in their recycle bin. However, it is not always a matter of can’t be bothered to work it out, but more a matter of it being so complicated and people can’t understand. I’m very keen that everything possible should go in the recycle bin but the instructions from my local council, especially regarding plastics, are so complicated. I just cannot work out for sure which plastic food containers, cartons and pots can go in the recycling bin and which can’t. If I can’t work it out as a fairly well educated person, no wonder my 85 year old mother with dementia puts so many things in the wrong bin and I end up having to remove things for the other bin!

At least my local authority have now taken to “if in doubt, put it in the recycling and we’ll take it out if it’s non-recyclable”. Makes it a whole lot easier.

 

[NSEFAN]

So why the difference? Does this expose double standards? Surely, if we can change our lifestyles to prevent Covid-19 causing millions of deaths Worldwide, we can also change our lifestyles to a smaller extent to 'save the planet'?

When a threat is more immediate people are more likely to react to it. A gradual decline in our quality of life is much harder to notice. Indeed, little was done about the smogs in London until they got so bad that thousands of people died during a particularly bad one.

Unfortunately, even people who claim to be open minded are often quite conservative, inasmuch that they are reluctant to change their lifestyle unless forced to, despite being presented with evidence that they really aught to make changes of their own volition. How many people only start eating better and exercising more after they have a health scare?

A silver lining of this Covid situation might be that more people will start working from home. The roads and trains are generally much quieter right now, and honestly it's a nice thing to see. Perhaps if we are shown how the world can be cleaner, there will be a desire to keep some of the changes that have been forced upon us?

 

[geoffk]

Not sure if this is the correct thread but related to the debate about what public transport might look like post Covid-19 is the possible change in the pattern of land use in our towns, cities and countryside.

Pre-virus the view among both climate activists and supporters of public transport was that large cities offer the best carbon outcomes and energy efficiency while avoiding dependency on private cars. But high-density living makes virus transmission much easier. Are we going to see more low-density “suburban sprawl”, out-of-town retail centres and leisure parks, all of which are hard to serve by public transport?

 

[edwin_m]

Not sure if this is the correct thread but related to the debate about what public transport might look like post Covid-19 is the possible change in the pattern of land use in our towns, cities and countryside.

Pre-virus the view among both climate activists and supporters of public transport was that large cities offer the best carbon outcomes and energy efficiency while avoiding dependency on private cars. But high-density living makes virus transmission much easier. Are we going to see more low-density “suburban sprawl”, out-of-town retail centres and leisure parks, all of which are hard to serve by public transport?

That is a big worry, something the current advice about avoiding public transport is not helping, particularly when evidence from the Far East seems to suggest it is not a major source of infection if there are sensible measures during epidemics such as mandatory mask wearing (finally introduced in the UK) and better cleaning of vehicles and stations.

The priority now being given to active travel will help in cities, not so much in the country where distances are greater and many roads are dangerous. Suburbs are somewhere in between.

 

[Enthusiast]

They aren’t likely to be willing to suffer major changes for something that might happen to people a hundred years down the line

Indeed. Just as our ancestors in the 19th and early 20th centuries were not too fussed about what they left for us to clear up. We've had to get on with it in the same way that our descendants will.

However, it is not always a matter of can’t be bothered to work it out, but more a matter of it being so complicated and people can’t understand. I’m very keen that everything possible should go in the recycle bin but the instructions from my local council, especially regarding plastics, are so complicated. I just cannot work out for sure which plastic food containers, cartons and pots can go in the recycling bin and which can’t.

Quite so. When I pick up something from the supermarket there are more instructions about recycling the packaging than there is about cooking the bloody contents. And don't even start me on "Contact your local council". I'm not an analytical chemist and I'm not going to spend an hour listening to Vivaldi every time I want to chuck a piece of packaging into the bin.

 

[al78]

Just thinking about (a) how Governments have responded to Covid-19, and (b) how Governments have responded over the years to climate change, biodiversity loss and environmental destruction.

As a result of Covid-19, Governments have imposed dramatic lifestyle changes on almost all of us, with only a few days or weeks notice. These changes will massively depress our and most other countries' GDPs and are already causing millions of people to lose their jobs - and most people seem to accept that is a reasonable price to pay for preventing Covid-19 deaths.

That stands in stark contrast with climate change, for which the response for many years has been one of too little, with the argument continually made that you can't expect people to change their lifestyles, and we can't afford to damage the economy in order to protect the environment. Yet it seems to me that, on any rational long-term assessment, the devastation that would be caused by not taking tough action on climate change, plastic pollution and biodiversity loss etc. is far, far, greater than the devastation that would have been caused by Covid-19 (awful though Covid-19 potentially is), and the lifestyle changes required to bring environmental damage within manageable levels are far less than those currently being imposed for Covid-19 (although would last longer).

So why the difference? Does this expose double standards? Surely, if we can change our lifestyles to prevent Covid-19 causing millions of deaths Worldwide, we can also change our lifestyles to a smaller extent to 'save the planet'?

The key difference is that COVID is a visible threat in that the effects of it can be directly observed, both by those who have loved ones who caught it, and those who regularly see the media reports on it. Climate change is a super evil problem as the real destructive consequences will not be felt for a few decades, any here and now consequences are invisible to most people, the consequences are primarily externalised onto the poorer countries (in particular, the ones which are already marginal for human habitation), the solution involves wealthy people reigning in activities that they would claim make life very convenient and worth living, and unlike COVID, climate change has had powerful lobbying bodies over the last half century trying to deny its existance, and using political tribalism to play to people's emotions. This last one is important, notice that no-one denies the ozone hole and the link to CFCs, this is because there is no major denialism campaign. Scientists discovered the link, legislation was passed, companies found economic alternatives to CFCs which were phased out, and the ozone hole is now filling.

As for your last sentence, if solving climate change meant being confined to our homes as much as possible, meant being cut off from physical connection with family, meant being unable to enjoy the face to face company of friends, and meant being unable to enjoy our hobbies, even if those hobbies weren't very carbon intensive, I doubt very much you'd get many people on board. Fortunately no scientist is saying we have to go down the road of the COVID restrictions to address climate change. There are some who say the COVID situation shows we can en-mass change our lives quickly to a threat if we have too, and that this should be a sign of hope that we can do the same when addressing climate change (not necessarily the same changes as for addressing COVID). Without hope, there is despair, and despair never solved anything.

 

[computerSaysNo]

That is a big worry, something the current advice about avoiding public transport is not helping, particularly when evidence from the Far East seems to suggest it is not a major source of infection if there are sensible measures during epidemics such as mandatory mask wearing (finally introduced in the UK) and better cleaning of vehicles and stations.

Can I make a correction, the mandatory face covering on public transport currently applies only to England.

 

[yorksrob]

Not sure if this is the correct thread but related to the debate about what public transport might look like post Covid-19 is the possible change in the pattern of land use in our towns, cities and countryside.

Pre-virus the view among both climate activists and supporters of public transport was that large cities offer the best carbon outcomes and energy efficiency while avoiding dependency on private cars. But high-density living makes virus transmission much easier. Are we going to see more low-density “suburban sprawl”, out-of-town retail centres and leisure parks, all of which are hard to serve by public transport?

This is a very good point, and worth considering.

My personal hope is that as a country, we value the countryside too much to cover it all in sprawl. It's a lesson we learned in the 1930's and 40's to an extent and I would hope that we won't chuck it out of the window due to a fear of virus transmission. The demonisation of public transport has been shown to be a nonsense in Europe and the far East, so one would hope that that will percolate through to here in some way.

 

[edwin_m]

Can I make a correction, the mandatory face covering on public transport currently applies only to England.

Hmm, mass discarding of masks as the train passes Gretna Junction or Marshall Meadows. And a sort of on-again off-again on the Marches line. In an attempt to keep this on topic, I understand the disposable masks have to go to landfill.

 

[NorthOxonian]

Hmm, mass discarding of masks as the train passes Gretna Junction or Marshall Meadows. And a sort of on-again off-again on the Marches line. In an attempt to keep this on topic, I understand the disposable masks have to go to landfill.

Is that true? I have noticed a large number just being left as litter, which is worrying. I touched on it on the masks thread but I'd like to see a concerted effort to promote non-disposable masks over disposable ones, because of sustainability concerns.

 

[Skymonster]

One thing the lockdown has shown is that the planet bounces back very quickly (cleaner waterways, less air pollution, etc.) when normal human economic activity reduces. This clearly demonstrates that assertions that we have been doing irreparable damage to our planet are nonsense. Where is that Swedish kid now? Nowhere because (a) the human race has far more important things to worry about and (b) it has become obvious the climate change message is flawed. While we should be doing what we can to mitigate the impact of our activities and their effects on the planet, it’s pretty clear the predictions of apocalypse are way wide of the mark and I think the climate change brigade will have to change their stance if they are to be regarded credibly in future.

 

[scotrail158713]

Can I make a correction, the mandatory face covering on public transport currently applies only to England.

Correct - however Scotrail are strongly encouraging the use of them.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

One thing the lockdown has shown is that the planet bounces back very quickly (cleaner waterways, less air pollution, etc.) when normal human economic activity reduces. This clearly demonstrates that assertions that we have been doing irreparable damage to our planet are nonsense.

I would say that, in contrast, it is your last sentence that is nonsense.

The lockdown has shown us that some forms of damage bounce back quickly - generally those pollutants that have a short lifespan. But global warming has not gone away - CO2 levels continue to rise in the atmosphere. Plastic pollution is still there. Biodiversity loss is still happening. Without drastic action on CO2 emissions, we are still on course for a disastrous global temperature rise over the next 50-100 years. Even regarging the lowerair pollution in cities (that is presumably referring to NO2 and particulates etc.), I'm not entirely clear to what extent that pollution has gone away vs. simply been dispersed more widely (That's a genuine don't know, by the way).

Where is that Swedish kid now? Nowhere because (a) the human race has far more important things to worry about and (b) it has become obvious the climate change message is flawed. While we should be doing what we can to mitigate the impact of our activities and their effects on the planet, it’s pretty clear the predictions of apocalypse are way wide of the mark and I think the climate change brigade will have to change their stance if they are to be regarded credibly in future.

Covid-19 may well be more urgent than climate change/environmental destruction but it is definitely not more important. In the long run, environmental destruction, if not addressed, will very likely kill far more people and ruin far more lives than Covid-19 ever will - just, on a longer timescale.

Oh, and, the rather condescending way you refer to Greta Thunberg, who frankly, talks a lot more sense than you have done in that post, is noted.

 

[edwin_m]

One thing the lockdown has shown is that the planet bounces back very quickly (cleaner waterways, less air pollution, etc.) when normal human economic activity reduces. This clearly demonstrates that assertions that we have been doing irreparable damage to our planet are nonsense. Where is that Swedish kid now? Nowhere because (a) the human race has far more important things to worry about and (b) it has become obvious the climate change message is flawed. While we should be doing what we can to mitigate the impact of our activities and their effects on the planet, it’s pretty clear the predictions of apocalypse are way wide of the mark and I think the climate change brigade will have to change their stance if they are to be regarded credibly in future.

You are confusing the short-term and local effects of pollution with longer-term climate damage. Yes the air has become much more breathable, and the rate of production of CO2 has fallen, but the CO2 produced in previous years is still there and is still having an effect. And if things just revert to normal then we will be back on the path to significant and irreversible climate change, having maybe delayed it by a few months.

 

[Jayden99]

Just my two cents here, but I think that if anything, the worldwide lockdown has poked more than a few holes into the 'individual responsibility' type of theory, where climate change would be solved if only we'd all just drive cleaner cars and stop using plastic straws. The biggest contributor to climate change is industry, especially things like oil and heavy manufacturing, and the lockdown seems to have shown that even if we all stop flying and everything else, the effect will be minimal without some pretty serious decarbonisation on an industrial scale.

 

[Skymonster]

I would say that, in contrast, it is your last sentence that is nonsense.

Sorry, but climate change is just another form of social repression, just like the lockdown, that preys on individuals’ fears to progress its objectives. The planet heats up, the planet cools down, and there isn’t anything we can do to stop it. Just like the virus is still going to be there whether we prolong the lockdown misery or not. I quite support the concept of slowing down the climate change if we can, but it has to be be done by science not by restrictions and it needs to run its course until science provides solutions (just like we need to accept that the virus cannot be stopped until science delivers a vaccine, and on that basis we need to get in with our lives and not restrict them). And as for that Swedish kid (thank you for reminding me of her name), her input is meaningless because she proposes only restrictions and does not offer any meaningful means of allowing development to continue (just like the corona-moaners who advocate further restrictions in fact).

 

[al78]

You are confusing the short-term and local effects of pollution with longer-term climate damage. Yes the air has become much more breathable, and the rate of production of CO2 has fallen, but the CO2 produced in previous years is still there and is still having an effect. And if things just revert to normal then we will be back on the path to significant and irreversible climate change, having maybe delayed it by a few months.

I suspect you are wasting your time trying to convince him/her, but good luck trying.

Psychology of climate change denial - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[43066]

So why the difference? Does this expose double standards? Surely, if we can change our lifestyles to prevent Covid-19 causing millions of deaths Worldwide, we can also change our lifestyles to a smaller extent to 'save the planet'?

Quite simply because COVID 19 is causing deaths here and now. It’s therefore easy to play on peoples’ fears and make emotive arguments about saving lives *at all costs* (whether the total number of deaths caused by lock down will end up being more than COVID would have have caused is a moot point!).

Climate change, on the other hand, is a gradual almost imperceptible process and the severe consequences we are promised are likely to occur many decades hence, and in other parts of the world. It’s much harder to persuade people to change their behaviour now in order to protect future generations. That is a rational viewpoint: why should I forfeit aspects of my lifestyle now to benefit others who haven’t even been born yet? (I’m not commenting on the morality, or otherwise, of that statement - just that’s it’s a perfectly rational position to take).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Climate change is not dissimilar to mask-wearing in a way - we need to deal with it for our children and our childrens' children, not for us - it requires us to make choices on an entirely altruistic basis, potentially at quite considerable personal disadvantage.

 

[edwin_m]

Climate change is not dissimilar to mask-wearing in a way - we need to deal with it for our children and our childrens' children, not for us - it requires us to make choices on an entirely altruistic basis, potentially at quite considerable personal disadvantage.

Yes, although the balance of risk and reward is different. Mask-wearing is likely to be a short-term thing until there is a vaccine or cases have declined for other reasons, and wearing a mask isn't a huge inconvenience (certainly compared to being in lockdown). The measures to address climate change will disrupt people's lifestyles far more severely and for much longer.

The other issue is that everyone can always point to someone else who doesn't seem to be doing anything to help, so why should they bother. Usually the finger points to USA or China according to personal prejudice. This is perhaps analogous to the Cummings factor in Covid.

 

[43066]

Climate change is not dissimilar to mask-wearing in a way - we need to deal with it for our children and our childrens' children, not for us - it requires us to make choices on an entirely altruistic basis, potentially at quite considerable personal disadvantage.

But how are you going to persuade people who don’t have children around to that viewpoint? At least mask wearing - much as I don’t agree with it - relates to a current issue and is (in theory at least) a short term measure.

Ironically about the most environmentally beneficial choice any of us can make in our lifetimes is choosing not to have children! There are already far too many human beings on this planet.

 

[squizzler]

Ironically about the most environmentally beneficial choice any of us can make in our lifetimes is choosing not to have children! There are already far too many human beings on this planet.

There are unlikely to be many children born over the next year as things stand now.

 

[Cowley]

There are unlikely to be many children born over the next year as things stand now.

Why do you think that?
I’d have thought that couples spending more time together than normal due to lockdown could lead to a possible mini boom in a years time than the opposite?