Covid-19 Might Actually Save the World

We all know that there are acute challenges facing just about every country in the world currently. Leaders are doing their best to manage the situation and prevent it spiralling too far out of control. There's no point in me going on too much about that, as we're bombarded with information at all times and from all angles.

I'm more interested in how this could eventually become a positive experience for the world in general, long-term.

Yes, there are undoubtedly bad things that could come out of this strange period of physical isolation (not even considering the direct deaths and the risks faced by health professionals, and the stress on everyone): the increased reliance on online services, for one - it was already bad enough that my children don't go out and 'play' anything like we used to in the Good Old Days, and there's a danger that this crisis will get people into habits that are hard to change and unlock doors to technological, remote solutions that are hard to slam shut afterwards, increasing social distance even when there's no medical requirement for it. Almost as bad is the increased opportunity for the parading/trumpeting of self-righteousness that appears to be an epidemic to rival Covid-19 itself. So you've volunteered for the NHS, or you've helped your elderly neighbour, or you've set up an online collection to buy cups of tea for hard-pressed nurses - well done. To be honest, we were already in that sort of world, thanks to the reach of social media, but it feels worse right now. I won't labour the point - professional cynics like The Daily Mash do it much better.

But the good things are what I'd rather concentrate on. And there are many: there is a palpable sense of community and helping of others, even here in heartless, self-centred London; there's bound to be less pollution, in terms of air quality and noise - it's lovely and quiet with fewer flights in the air and fewer cars on the road; and there's a definite increased awareness of local traders - these are often places where it's easier to get certain items, and they're within walking distance - maybe some of the habits we've been forced into recently will stick, and we'll use these outlets more in the future. Come on - every pound that goes into the pocket of a hard-working neighbour rather than a corporate body has to be a pound well spent, doesn't it? (yes, I know there's more to it than that.....)

More than anything, I've been struck by how (relatively) easily people have been able to change their behaviour. Especially given that we're adopting such extreme measures. Even cynics (of which I just might be one) have been encouraged to fall into line on the back of public opinion and clear, consistent (actually, insistent) guidance from our leaders. Yes, people are still out and about to a certain extent, but they are making a genuine effort to distance themselves as per instructions. We're mostly a bit self-conscious about it but are getting used to it quickly. Of course, there remain those who can't see beyond the end of their noses (or arms, I suppose, nowadays, since the object of their attention is normally at the end of one of them), but there always will be.

This is a good thing, this ability to adapt behaviour to the current and future situation. And that's what's bothering me...

If people are able to make these intrusive and limiting changes to their lives in order to control a virus, why can't they do something similar to prevent/limit (delete as appropriate) the impending/current (delete as appropriate) environmental emergency? And why can't the Government (well, all governments, really) take similar drastic measures in this field also? The approach up to now appears to have been vacillation and waffle and lack of meaningful action.

People in general have, in the last days and weeks, woken up to the fact that drastic changes are required if disasters are to be averted. So why can't we make that connection to similar, but longer-term, emergencies? Everywhere we encounter advice (and I have advocated myself, also) to 'make small changes' to help the environment, admitting that large and life-altering changes aren't a realistic prospect for most. But that approach isn't working - everything we read or hear suggests that global temperatures are rising as fast as ever, forecast scenarios are rushing at us quicker than we could have foreseen, we're reaching tipping points on a constant basis, it seems.

How many people will climate change kill? What financial cost will there be?

I think there are a couple of reasons behind the current inaction: the power of the purely economic in our increasingly capitalist world, and short-termism, whether that's driven by sound democratic ideals or simply by human nature.

The sort of change to climate-related policy demanded by most environmentalists will cost businesses, financially. It'll cost them plenty. Some might be rendered non-viable, even. This isn't a particularly attractive prospect for many, especially some of the more powerful ones, who do whatever they can to delay and scupper unpalatable plans. However, this Covid-19 crisis is costing billions, trillions of dollars. Nobody's questioning if that's a good or bad thing. It's necessary, right?

And the short-termism we're seeing controls our lives. Democratically-elected governments have to keep their popularity up - they work on cycles of around 3-7 years, I suppose, certainly not 50-100 years, the timescale over which major changes are likely to be seen (at least, that was the case until recently....)

As for humans in general, I came across a good example recently - an article about Aberdeen and its resilience and how it might reinvent itself as the oil and gas business inevitably shrinks and then disappears over the coming years. It was almost an interesting article. And the most telling part of it, I thought, was the general view of the workers they interviewed (in the local pub): largely, they were concerned that things kept going at least mostly as normal for the next 10-12 years, by which time they'd be retired/financially secure. In other words, they showed absolutely no interest in the well-being of Aberdeen as a city or the Earth as a resource fit for humans. And who can blame them? It's hard enough for most people to provide for their families, and it's a big responsibility. They can't be thinking about much beyond the immediately necessary - that's the job of governments and philosophers.

I don't think anyone is seriously going to argue that these current measures aren't worth it. At best they're irritating (especially the pubs being shut and my 7-a-side football being suspended, and will we even have a cricket season???) and at worst they're quite stressful, but everyone recognises the alternative, which is thousands upon thousands of lives. When this is over (and it will be before we know it), can we carry some of these modified behaviours over into our renewed lives? Don't travel unnecessarily, don't treat everything as consumable and throwaway, don't exploit others to make a profit, look after your neighbours and your neighbourhood, think about how your own personal actions/choices can be modified for the greater good, always stay 2m away from others (um......actually, there'll be no need to do that - I'm getting confused).

We've seen that taking early and decisive measures will save lives. Well, how about we even pre-empt things, because we can see the environmental impacts coming! We're in an enviable position; don't miss this opportunity to learn, to surf on the wave of what we've found out is possible, of what we've found out we're capable of. We CAN change. When there's enough at stake.