It is good topic and very interesting in last 15 years.

Hello Cameron; I'm generally an optimist about peoples' ability to understand a problem. However, calling people to action is quite another matter. The psychological literature is loaded with papers about this. Immediacy and agency are the crux of the matter. Problems have to be perceived as affecting "me" now and there must be something "I" can do about it now. In the US people were mostly blase about the pandemic, particularly our president until there was a case in "my" town. Now it's immediate. What to do? People didn't do the things that were suggested - keep a distance and stay away from crowds - until the local government 'strongly encouraged' us to do so. Oh, but we hoarded toilet paper...just in case.

The hazards of climate change have neither the obvious immediacy nor the obvious agency that the pandemic has and so I'm not optimistic that we will have generalized the lesson. I hope I'm wrong, Jim Des Lauriers

The other factor James diplomatically glossed over is the death rate. When people's lives prematurely end due to a viral infection, the natural wish to live is a remarkable stimulus for massive concerted reaction. With climate change, even though the death rate is or soon will be similar to that of COVID-19, almost all events can be blamed on other, indirect, factors, and dismissed. I wonder how much of the massive effort to counter this coronavirus would have been mounted if the infection was confined to the Third World only?

Tony Maine Yes. Sadly I think we know the answer to that! We saw it with Zika, Ebola, and other epidemics that didn't become global pandemics. If society had decided to cure malaria or dengue fever, we could have.

Thanks for this question, I have asked myself the same since this pandemic has begun (I’m a researcher of the politics of climate change). I fear that once this crisis draws to its inevitable end, climate change will most likely retake the backstage. The priority will be to restart the economy, worldwide, and at any expense. Socioeconomic concerns are already viewed as THE major challenges after the pandemic, with good reason. Unemployment, the trillions of capital lost on the stock market, the sorry state the health services will be in after this is over, etc. – all are valid concerns.

COVID-19 may be an opportunity, for the emerging “social distance” technologies, for epidemiological expertise, etc. I doubt that it is an opportunity for an effective climate change policy. I have gained three sociological insights from this crisis: (1) the pandemic has indeed produced an immense and rapid change in in all spheres of social life, as you say; (2) nonetheless, the response to this global crisis remains mostly national, with little international cooperation; and (3) that most national governments have responded too late, too little. Otherwise, we would not count over a million infected people now.

I see many parallels to climate change, despite the obvious differences between the two. Our response to climate change has been insufficient for decades, and will probably remain inadequate until its consequences reach a greater magnitude than what we are already experiencing, and most likely when they hurt the pockets of the rich and powerful. Again, too little, too late

Tony, we should not ignore the fact that while the pandemic by definition affects everyone, its consequences are most felt among the poorest. Take India, now under lockdown: millions of homeless and transitory workers are already starving. There is no two trillion dollar stimulus to help them.

The estimate that mitigating climate change has a temporary cost of say, 2% of global GDP was ridiculous. Around 80% of our energy use comes from burning fossil fuels. See https://www.s-cool.co.uk/gifs/g-phy-nrgtrf-dia06.gif Eliminating that would reduce GDP by much more than 2%.

With the current pandemic crisis, we are being told that it is only temporary until we find a vaccine. That makes it bearable. Cutting our energy use permanently by 80% would not.

Moreover, when the rate of sea level rise becomes intolerable, cutting CO2 production will not slow that down. Only reducing atmospheric CO2 will do that, so we will have to find a way of consuming CO2 rather than producing it. That is a lot harder than finding a vaccine.

It seems to me that most scientists are in denial, based on unreasonable optimism. They don't seem to realise that AGW will disrupt agriculture causing famines and wars.

Very slim chances. Reason being the effects of COVID-19 are explicit in the form of deaths, disruption of normal livelihoods and general well being of people. The effects of climate change on the contrary are gradual though long-term silent killers and are not really explicitly connected with environment.

Alastair Bain McDonald, thanks for your comment. If you think an estimate is 'ridiculous', perhaps you could back that up with some evidence? Here's a source of aggressive mitigation costing 1% through 2030: https://ourworldindata.org/how-much-will-it-cost-to-mitigate-climate-change and here's a less optimistic take: https://climatepolicyinfohub.eu/costs-mitigation-overview

This focus on costs is profoundly flawed anyway, since the costs of inaction are far greater. The choices are: major costs now or unfathomable costs later.

The scientists I'm listening to and talking with are extremely clear about what's happening. Do you find the heavily consensus-driven IPCC reports too rosy? They are terrifying. Well, enough arguing. I think we actually agree on most of this.

Joan Nyika I tend to agree. We'll see when major cities start flooding to the point of no return.

I am optimistic that some people will take a cue from the response to Covid 19 and be able to translate that to a advocating sustainable development even more and encouraging positive responses to climate change. I have been observing the Corona pandemic from almost the southern tip of Africa but sufficiently north where the climate has changed - drought is the norm, rain the variable. What makes me a bit pessimistic and a bit judgmental is to have observed the tardy behavior of a significant number of people (citizens and foreigners alike) who have boarded a charter flight because suddenly they are in a crisis. The media makes it clear to me that a large proportion of people have not understood (whether because of choice or ignorance) what either sustainable development or climate change are all about.

Cameron Brick,

Thanks for getting back to me.

I thought I had backed up my point that the claim that mitigation would only cost 2% of GDP was ridiculous when I showed that approximately 75% of our energy comes from fossil fuels. However, I did not mention that this was based on my “Energy Theory of Value” which is unpublished and in fact unwritten.

My theory is an adaption of Adam Smith’s Labour Theory of Value, in which he argued that the true value of a thing was the amount of labour a mon was prepared to exert to obtain it. That was fine in the 18th Century when it was written, but with the Industrial Revolution physical work was replaced by steam power from the burning of fossil fuels. Therefore my theory states that the true value of an object is the amount of energy that has to be produced in order to obtain it, and that the GDP is equal to the cost of that energy consumed by the state. Thus, I calculate that it would require a 75% reduction in GDP to mitigate climate change.

An example of my theory is the cost of solar energy which is from the manufacture and installation of solar panels. That is mainly from the consumption of energy (from the burning of fossil fuels.)

I am not the only one who thinks that the IPCC are underestimating the danger of AGW. There is an article here where several prominent climate scientists voice their opinions:

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060102283

I only disagree with the last, Gavin Schmidt, who seems to think that the next generation will be able to undo the damage we are doing. How can they do that without the energy from burning fossil fuels?

I’ve read your two sources, but I am not convinced by them. For instance, Hannah Ritchie seems to have come up with a scheme which will cost less than 1%, but how much will it achieve? Is she proposing a scheme which will give a net saving when what we need is a gross saving? CO2 emissions need to be eliminated not just reduced. In fact, Gavin Schmidt’s next generation will have to remove at least some of the CO2 we have put into the atmosphere!

Do we still agree?

Alastair Bain McDonald, thanks for your thoughtful reply. I think we still agree more than it might appear at first. We both expect the upcoming changes to be globally devastating, and much worse than most expect. I'm fine leaving the rest here. Thanks again.

I've been thinking and reading about the impacts of the pandemic on Sustainable Development, especially in Africa. I believe we will come to fully understand the effects on climate change and other development issues during the post COVID-19 days. There's been claims about the reduction in GHG emissions recently, we will also know how that will be in the days ahead.

None

Parts of this new normal are actually better. I am optimistic that these behavioral changes are already underway, think Teleworking, supporting local business, local sustainable food systems, enjoying parks/natural areas, and walking regularly. I wonder if there is an opportunity to support some of the massive disruptive changes (intersectional with adaptation or mitigation) that have been made in the name of stopping corona virus. How can we support these behavioral changes now so that they become a better normal in 6, 12, or 24 months?

Cameron Brick,

There is a program on BBC Radio dealing with this question. It can be heard again here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hfs7

The first speaker, Steven Pinker, in his introduction makes two points with which I totally agree. They are what I was trying to say but he makes those point far better.

IMHO, the two female speakers get it wrong. They don't seem to realise that if nothing is done, global warming is going to be far more catastrophic than the coronavirus. See:

Ocean Studies Board and National Research Council (2002)

Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises,

National Academies Press

which can be read or downloaded as a PDF file here: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/10136/abrupt-climate-change-inevitable-surprises

What is going to happen about the consequences of Covid19 pandemic is bailing out the economic system that was at the origin of the crisis, just as it was for the subprime crisis,..., just a reward for their irresponsibility.

Historically, as a reward for the "Cultural Revolution", businessmen gave the know-how of occidental countries to autocrats who exterminated their educated people for a greater financial benefits and to the detriment of environmental, quality, hygiene, safety, and social rules.

Further, at the same time the know-how was exported, the "Cultural Revolution" was imported by an extreme totalitarian capitalistic liberalism.

Moreover, after exporting for free the SARS-Cov2, the F. Army decided to buy/import HCQ and masks that are not respecting QC standards to help taming the epidemic... It make business sense. What then would you expect about respecting any environmental objectives?

And today, April 28th 2020, the F. rulers taking the excuse of the pandemic are going to impose with an artefact of democratic vote a package of arbitrary laws including some putting the country on a path of totalitarism, following the example of the migthy asian empire imposing tracking devices... this was anchored when this last president who decided to transform exceptional laws against terrorism to make them regular laws. In the news, official mass media are making a subversive propaganda to facilitate the acceptation of these tracking technologies. Actually, April 29th is a sad anniversary that no media I've heard or read as reminded when the celebrated F. Gal. created the law in 1969 about "Etat d'urgence" and "Etat de Siège" that was utilized at this occasion.

In the last decade was declared:

1- War against terrorism

2- Sanitary war What's next: war against climate change?

What ongoing war started all this shamble?

On May 7th, the day before the 75th anniversary of the armistice, the F. president signed a truce with the COVID-19. For that occasion, under the control of the F. PM, during a press conference, we heard declarations of many F. ministers but not the F. defense minister. Is it really easier negociating a surrender of this virus than asking F. people to respect hygienic and physical distancing rules?

Will anyone recall what the consequences of declaring a war are?

Why History repeats itself (not exacly but with ever more technological power*)?

Why educated people don't remember and learn from History?

When will cease-fire, armistice, and peace will be declared?

dr. Cameron Brick, is this type of action you'd like to see taking place to adapt to climate change?

With kind regards

* https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_time_we_shift_emphasis_from_technological_solutions_to_climate_change_focus_on_the_Human_Dimension

“science sans conscience c’est la ruine de l’âme” Rabelais or with the progress of the STEM, la ruine de humanité.

Science without consciousness is the ruin of the soul (16th century) and ..., after 4 centuries of … progress, ... the ruin of humankindness, humaneness, and humankind.

The intention to act in the face of some stimulus is dependent to a large extent on the perceived nature of the stimulus. Most people especially in government don't see much immediacy in the threat of climate change, and it doesn't obviously kill lots of people right now. Covid-19 is an immediate threat and the death rate, though fairly low in most countries, is high enough to spur significant action. So I don't see any substantial change in the attitudes of most world leaders when the pandemic is over and the climate is 'all' we have to deal with.

Whatever the envisaged levels of technology, it is clear that all countries now need to devise national strategies for adaptation, assessing the communities and the locations at greatest risk and planning appropriately. This is becoming increasingly urgent since the quality of today’s decision-making on agricultural or industrial development or on the layout of towns and cities could all too soon be tested against future variations in climate. The scientific warnings may not yet provide the level of precision desired by many planners, but they portray with certainty a rapidly warming world with consequences that globally, and for most people, are largely negative. A new climate is on the way. Adaptation is not a choice, it is a necessity and follow certain guidelines for future protection and conservation.

The COVID-19 pandemic has elicited a global response unlike anything we've seen before. From government and business taking on new roles to respond to the crisis to the complete re-organisation of how we work, travel and socialize, we have witnessed transformation changes that didn't appear possible just weeks ago. The human costs of the pandemic are horrifying, but the response has largely been characterized by care, compassion and connection – and an unheard-of pace of change.

What happens over the coming months could go one of two ways.

There is a risk that as the immediate crisis wanes and its economic consequences become clearer, we cast aside longer-term aspirations in pursuit of short-term easy fixes, many of which would have adverse environmental consequences. These include rolling back environmental standards, stimulating the economy by subsidizing fossil-fuel-heavy industries and focusing on making more things, rather than using them better.

But there is another possibility. While we are reeling in the shock of what is happening around us and coming to terms with our new reality, we could seize this moment as a unique window of opportunity to re-build our society and economy as we want it. With scientists warning we have 10 years left to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, this could offer an opportunity to fix the climate crisis before it's too late.