Can the coronavirus crisis be compared with the climate crisis?

3 April 2020, by CEN Universität Hamburg

Photo: UHH/ CEN/ Ausserhofer

Prof. Dr. Anita Engels is a social scientist and Co-Speaker of the Cluster of Excellence for climate research CLICCS. In the following, she responds to the comparison between the coronavirus crisis and the climate crisis, a topic that is now being frequently discussed:

Is the coronavirus crisis comparable to the climate crisis?

The comparison isn’t helpful. People are experiencing the two crises in very different ways, and also view them differently; as a result, the possible responses also differ. The coronavirus crisis, which has the potential to become a catastrophe, is something that many people can sense very directly. Though the risk of dying from an infection, statistically speaking, has a great deal to do with age, there is no geographic limit, and for at least the next few weeks, theoretically everyone is at risk. In terms of combating the crisis, responding rapidly is the top priority. Despite the frequency of extreme weather events, the effects of the climate crisis still won’t really manifest until sometime in the future, and will vary greatly from region to region. Moreover, climate protection primarily involves a long-term structural change in the economy and society. Accordingly, efforts to respond to the coronavirus crisis are being pursued in an acute crisis mode, while the climate crisis requires a long-term preventive mode. 

Would it make sense to demand the same type of radical measures now being taken to combat the coronavirus crisis in terms of protecting the climate?

The crisis mode in which political decision-makers are now operating can’t be applied to climate protection. The urgency of the coronavirus crisis has especially paved the way for two new measures: drastic limitations of individual liberties, and the provision of substantial state support in coping with the crisis. These limitations on citizens’ freedom of movement aren’t likely to have any long-term legitimacy. They are only being accepted by the populace on a temporary basis, and only because the potential for catastrophe is something they can see for themselves. Since the climate problem is differently structured, limiting individual freedom of movement for the sake of climate protection can’t hope to receive any legitimation from voters. That being said, the state support currently being provided will most likely rekindle the discussion on the long-term financing for climate protection: the current crisis mode has demonstrated that state investment and support programs can indeed become realities, provided the political will is there. As such, once the coronavirus crisis has been overcome, we’re sure to see a reassessment of long-term state expenditures in general.

Will climate protection profit from the coronavirus crisis?

It’s anybody’s guess. It’s cynical to claim the emissions reductions that have been produced by the coronavirus crisis as a success for climate protection. But even from a neutral perspective, the short-term reductions are disproportionate to the long-term climate goals. Climate protection will require a long-term structural change. Whether the emissions rapidly climb again after the crisis, or whether long-term reductions can be achieved, will depend on the political responses. At the moment there are many indications that climate protection will likely take a back seat, because of the perceived need for a rapid economic recovery.

What could be done now?

The response to the coronavirus crisis can certainly be used as a blueprint for climate protection. State support programs for the economy could be combined with concepts for long-term climate protection, including at the corporate level. The support currently being offered for freelancers in the service, hotel and catering sectors could be used for the introduction of CO2  management instruments and the development of new, climate-friendly business models. The bursts of creativity and solidarity evoked by the crisis could be used to establish a new service industry for climate protection. Accordingly, the coronavirus crisis and climate crisis shouldn’t be competitors.