The trajectory of global action on SARS Covid-19 can explain parts of the world’s reaction to climate change. The Covid-19 saga began with an unwillingness to believe the gravity of the problem, this influenced the early half-hearted responses to combating the virus. These early decisions indicated willingness to sacrifice others to continue in the business-as-usual mode. When the enormity of the situation finally hit, the decisions made showed the scale of un-preparedness. The lockdown gave an idea of the resilience, courage, dedication and adaptability of humans. The overwhelmed healthcare facilities showed our inability to prepare for disasters. The invention of the vaccine in a short time proved that governments and corporates can work together. But vaccine distribution proved the consequences of political and socio-economic powerlessness.
The world has finally come full circle with vaccine hesitancy resulting in people not getting vaccinated. Rumours of deleterious side-effects of Covid vaccinations and the false equivalence of individual rights being trampled by calls to get vaccinated makes us vulnerable to this virus again.
There are some similarities with action to combat climate change. There was denial, then the willingness to let certain sections of society bear the brunt of climate change to continue in the business-as-usual-mode. Unfortunately, the recognition of the ‘genormity’ of the consequences of climate change has not catalysed much change. To many, climate change is a hoax. Quite a few Americans believe the introduction of new technologies to tackle climate change infringes their rights.
There is another reason which is of far greater consequence than those listed above; choosing short-term goals because of their expediency, leaving the hard decisions to others. Climate change requires forward thinking and therefore the induction of new technologies. These, while threatening the stranglehold of older technologies do not affect the livelihoods of people. No government would want to destroy the economy by introducing technologies that leave people unemployed. There will be upskilling and provision of alternative employment opportunities. But this faith in the government and common sense is absent. If one needed a successful example of introduction of new technology, then the use of computers should be put at rest any doubts.
So, the question is why is there such recalcitrance, mule headedness, ostrich like thinking to accept the threat of climate change? Why is there a mendacity to subvert action that is vital? It is not the fear of something new and the other ancillary fears that come with it.
At the end of the day could all this be about losing socio-political power and relevance?
In the US, businessmen like the Koch Brothers and corporations like Exxon not only fund politicians but also create think-tanks to fabricate Alternate Facts that undermine the truth about climate change. Any policy that threatens the existence of the oil industry would therefore be an anathema.
In India, the truth is little more muddled. Politicians desire the lowest cost route to socio-economic development, while many businessmen want the cheapest route to profit. Thus, the focus on coal as the fuel of choice for the Indian economy. This is not to say that renewables are not a growing source of power generation, but it has a lot of catching up to do. Coal provided for 75% of the country’s energy supply in 2019. The Central Electricity Authority expects renewable sources to generate half the energy requirements by 2030. The focus on renewables also provides India’s current ruling dispensation with another opportunity to showcase its futuristic thinking.
There is another issue when it comes to fighting climate change for countries like India; the concept of equity and fairness. The developed world has been a major contributor to climate change for a long stretch of time. However, there is a demand from them that less developing countries do as much as the developed world to deal with climate change. This demand is unfair and can cost countries like because investments would have to be made in technology that is new and therefore expensive.
The tumult from negotiations on fairness, businesses sabotaging climate change action distracts one from the enormity of the problem and the fact that the world is already facing the consequences. The current floods in Europe, the heat wave in Northwestern US and Canada are proof that what has been done to combat climate change has been insufficient.
There is one final reason for climate inaction, the belief that we as individuals are making a difference by changing our consumption habits. For some reason we are unable to understand that though we may purchase an energy efficient AC, it still requires energy to produce. According to Motilal Oswal Research, there has been an almost 10% CAGR increase volume in the air conditioner market over FY10–20. The market is expected to grow at a CAGR of approximately 17% by 2023. Buying efficient ACs does not mitigate its impact on the environment if the number of ACs increase.
Conscious consumerism is an oxymoron. Marketing gurus have been successful in getting us to focus on the product. The product in itself may be climate friendly but there are many steps in its production, delivery and use that may not be so.
The lockdown to prevent the spread of Covid proved that humans can survive with less. Most accepted lockdown because they saw the horrors of Covid infection. The fight against Covid was personal. Climate change action is stymied on many fronts. What is worse is that there is a concerted effort to misguide individual effort.
Covid brought us a new normal masks, sanitizers and hand washing. What is the new normal that climate change will bring us? Or is the new normal from climate change already in our midst?
(Samir Nazareth is an author and writes on socio-economic and environmental issues)
