Applying Coronavirus-style Problem Solving to Climate Change

For many environmentalists, the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic serves as a wake-up call. Many have compared the dangers of a rapidly warming planet to those of a rapidly spreading infection. Many more have mused on the general mismanagement of a disaster visible from some distance. But most have failed to glean—perhaps—the principal lesson to be drawn from both hazards.

COVID-19 functions not merely as some microcosm of a climate change disaster but as the most pointed criticism of our attempts to avoid it. It highlights glaring hypocrisies in our attitudes towards disaster management and problem-solving in general. And it is in this regard that we stand to free ourselves from such stagnation.

Let us consider the elements of both events. Both consist of hazards. There is an infection leading to respiratory disease in the case of coronavirus. Then, there are the array of secondary hazards caused by a warming climate: rising sea levels, desertification, famine, and the like. For the purpose of this comparison, the extent of both disasters is the linking factor. While the mechanisms of risk are different, their reach across the globe is the same.

Next is our response to the threat. It’s by some cruel twist of fate that both COVID-19 and climate change appear to be treatable by the deceleration of society. With the pandemic, it is known as lockdown: a draconian end to almost all social and economic activity in the name of public health. It is received as a dire sacrifice and is considered by many to be a disaster in its own right; it is accepted, though, with the knowledge that it is temporary—a stalling technique to help our institutions cope while a vaccine is developed. Nobody considers lockdown the solution.