Excitement about the Coronavirus’ Effect on Emissions Obscures the Big Picture

“Should individuals collectively decide to make radical changes to lower their carbon output, they—and the economy at large—will suffer. As a result, individuals won’t. And, their individual choices would not be enough, regardless.”

As more than a billion people worldwide stay in their homes amid the most significant pandemic in a century, headlines have been reporting unprecedented drops in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, as well as the disappearance of smog from major cities such as Los Angeles. Consequently, many have optimistically latched onto the idea that these developments point towards the possibility of a greener post-Coronavirus (COVID-19) society. However, these headlines paint a misleading picture of the pandemic’s impact, and they also expose a long-held tension in the world of environmental activism.

This tension refers to the differing suggested approaches to responding to environmental concerns. Ought we encourage lifestyle changes by individuals that, collectively, might generate the desired environmental impact—or, ought we, as nations and societies, pursue large-scale, structural modifications? Advocates of the former argue that climate solutions can be achieved through a series of individual decisions to curb carbon output. Almost implicit in their argument is that finding climate solutions by any other means would be either immoral, economically suffocating, or both. When it comes to recommended changes that individuals might make to their own lives, these include limiting travel, consuming less red meat, and decreasing heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) use. Meanwhile, advocates of structural socioeconomic change sometimes struggle to form a consensus view on the economic impact of their objectives. However, they generally agree that individuals cannot be expected to make short-term personal concessions. Furthermore, even if individuals were to make these significant lifestyle changes, it would still not be enough to effectively decrease CO2 output. As such, many of these activists believe that with the correctly implemented set of taxes and subsidies on dirty and clean energy industries, respectively, the transition to a greener economy can be immediately financially beneficial. Others, meanwhile, argue that economic sacrifices may have to be made in the short term—but that the long term economic effects of climate change will be far more costly should changes not be made.

It is predictably difficult to reconcile these stances. In the past, both positions have struggled with the fact that their arguments largely occurred in the abstract, with little material proof for the superiority of one over the other. Then, enter COVID-19.