Source: Pixabay.com

The global spread of coronavirus continues to spiral out of control with rising rates of infections across multiple nations. At the time of writing, the virus has infected over 113,000 people across the globe and killed more than 4,000. The World Health Organisation believes that the threat of a pandemic “has become very real” although it could well be argued that we have already reached that point.

In addition to the thousands of personal tragedies and the panic instilled into millions of people, the virus has brought severe economic disruption. On Monday, the Dow Jones experienced its sharpest drop since the 2008 financial crisis as markets across the world entered panic-mode. Such market turbulence reflects the real-world economic impact of the virus. Last month, China, the so-called “workshop of the world”, ordered the closure of a large number of factories resulting in global shortages of goods ranging from mobile phones to medicines. What began in China has spread across the world and this has brought severe economic disruptions. We are already experiencing multiple manifestations of this: losses in stock markets, supply chain disruptions, and reduced demand for consumer goods.

This may only be just the beginning. Italy, which is now approaching 10,000 infected people, provides a glimpse of what is possibly in store for other nations. On Monday, the country went into complete lockdown. 60 million people were ordered to stay at home, with all but the most essential travel forbidden. Public gatherings have been banned, whilst schools and universities have been closed. If other major industrial countries experience something similar, the global economic effects that have been witnessed thus far will be greatly magnified. Indeed, one projection of worst-case scenarios estimates that the coronavirus could result in $2.7 trillion worth of lost output. This translates into recessions across the world; in the US, Japan and Europe, as well as a China that is growing much slower than usual. In this worst-case scenario, the downturn would be at least as severe as that witnessed in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.

Such an economic downturn would result in widespread human suffering and, when combined with a deadly virus with the potential to kill hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people, could be the greatest global disaster since the Second World War. However, there may be one silver lining to the emerging dark clouds: a pandemic induced economic contraction would be very likely to reduce the levels of global greenhouse gas emissions. Put simply, less economic activity means lower emissions. In China, this is already occurring. Factory closures and coal-fired power plants operating at reduced capacity, combined with restrictions on travel, have resulted in levels of greenhouse gas emissions that are 25% less than expected. The effect is visible from space, as revealed by recent NASA images.

Visible reductions in China’s emissions. (Source:LiveScience.com)

In the event of a global pandemic, we should anticipate that many other countries will see their emissions fall. Already, we are witnessing lower demand in oil markets and air travel, both of which are huge contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, and a global recession would result in reduced demand across a whole range of industries. The fear of such a recession has been reflected in the precipitous fall in the price of oil, as investors predict consumption to go down. This week, it was reported that the International Energy Agency believes that it “expects global oil demand to fall by almost 100,000 barrels a day — compared with expected growth of more than 800,000 barrels before the outbreak”. The resultant oil price reduction has meant that many oil producers have announced plans to cut back on drilling and production.

Such reductions in oil consumption and production levels could potentially limit emissions growth but were a severe global pandemic to be unleashed, as now appears increasingly likely, we would see significant reductions in global emissions. There are several historical precedents to such a scenario. The Great Depression saw global emissions fall by 25% between 1929 and 1932. The Spanish Flu, probably the deadliest pandemic in history, is also estimated to have reduced emissions. Going back further, the 14th Century Black Death Plague is believed to have triggered a “Little Ice Age” in Europe as “millions of trees sprang up on abandoned farmland, soaking up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere”.

Of course, these were all horrific events and if the coronavirus spreads to the point where global emissions are significantly lowered this is not a happy outcome for humanity. As climate scholar Gernot Wagner states:

Emissions in China are down because the economy has stopped and people are dying, and because poor people are not able to get medicine and food. This is not an analogy for how we want to decrease emissions from climate change.

Even in the event that global emissions do go down, they will rebound as soon as the pandemic is brought under control. After all, the Great Recession of 2008 and 2009 saw emissions decline briefly before business as usual resumed. Economic recessions and global pandemics are quite obviously not the solutions to climate change. That said, there are a number of similarities between climate change and the coronavirus outbreak that should give our leaders pause for thought. Both will prove extremely disruptive. Both require urgent action, and both are global problems that cannot be adequately addressed at the level of the nation state. The lessons learned from the response to coronavirus must be applied to how we approach climate change.

We have witnessed massive government intervention at the societal level, first in China, then in Italy, and now increasingly across the rest of the world. These responses demonstrate the capacity of authorities to intervene when they deem it essential. Such a response is also necessary for climate change mitigation. Indeed, some of the same actions may prove applicable. Closing factories, scaling back energy production, curtailing air-travel, having more people work at home; these have been necessary to slow the spread of coronavirus but may also be useful in combating climate change. Furthermore, as governments around the world prepare stimulus packages to deal with the economic fallout of the outbreak, we are witnessing in real-time the fact that money can be found when the urgency of the situation requires it. Our leaders are demonstrating to us that, in times of crisis, the needs of the free market need not always take precedence.

A pandemic could yet result in millions of people across the globe infected and tens or hundreds of thousands of fatalities. But in fifty years’ time, the coronavirus may end up being viewed as a mere footnote to that other great cataclysm that the world faces. In a post-coronavirus world, as our governments seek to reboot our societies and economies, they must do so in a way that takes the threat of climate change seriously. Perhaps some restrictions should remain on air travel. Maybe some factories should not re-open, especially if what they are producing is not worth the long-term damage that their emissions are causing. Most importantly, the stimulus packages that governments announce should be directed as much as possible toward climate adaption. If emissions are falling, they need to stay falling.

A global pandemic would be a planetary catastrophe. We must learn from our responses to it as planetary catastrophes may yet come to define the 21st Century.

If you enjoyed this article and would like to keep up to date with my future work, you can follow me on Twitter here or on Facebook here