DynamicSpirit
Established Member
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'?
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'?