Climate Change and Post-Lockdown Behavior: Missed Opportunities
It is almost four years since the first COVID-19 lockdown restrictions were eased in the UK. Four years since the entire population began to emerge after being imprisoned in their own homes. Four years since this novel virus, which carried a significant threat to health and to life, brought the entire world to a standstill.
Though there were some naysayers and conspiracy theorists to contend with, the vast majority of people listened to the science and complied with requests to rapidly adapt their behaviour. The very real and immediate existential threat was sufficient to bring about drastic change.
Overnight, we found ways to work remotely and keep in touch with friends and family from a distance. We made the best of the situation and cherished time spent outside in nature. We went without foreign holidays, meals out and trips to the shopping centre.
And the planet reaped the benefits. Air quality improved dramatically in cities; smog literally cleared from the most polluted urban areas within a few days. There was an unprecedented reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. The levels of pollution in water courses reduced.
If we ever needed proof of the damaging effects of human behaviour on the environment, here it was.
Four years later, it seems as though people are now making up for lost time. Everyone is in such a hurry, with no patience or respect for other road users. The money that people saved during the lockdowns is now burning a hole in their pocket, so materialistic purchases have escalated. Limitations on travel caused delays to holidays; these have been re-booked and people are taking additional trips abroad as well.
All this makes me wonder whether we have missed an ideal opportunity to bring about sustained, significant change.
Two Existential Threats
It is deeply troubling that there is an ever-growing body of scientific evidence regarding climate change and the very real dangers we face as a global community if we do not radically alter our behavior. And yet, the majority of the population do not appear to have grasped the enormity of the problem we face.
I am hesitant to suggest that people lack the intellectual ability to understand the basic concepts involved in climate science. During the pandemic, in a remarkably short space of time, everyone became familiar with the science around R values and the premise of “flattening the curve.”
So, is it willful ignorance or fatalism that prevents the population from changing their ways? Frequent air travel, driving large inefficient cars for any and every journey, consuming animal products, purchasing more and more material possessions; all these behaviours have a huge environmental cost. And yet, these behaviours continue.
Governments continue to kick the metaphorical can further and further down the road, as they know that introducing legislation to force the necessary changes on people will be hugely unpopular – with large corporations and Joe Public alike.
There are huge industries – oil, travel, fashion just to name a few – that make unbelievable amounts of money from practices that continue to harm the planet. They are able to continue to do so because they bankroll politicians and use clever marketing to convince us all that we need what they are selling.
And so, we are falling far short of the necessary changes to limit global warming to 1.50C. Climate scientists now predict we are heading for around 3.00C of warming instead; a scary thought indeed.
What Could Have Been Done Differently?
It goes without saying that the pandemic caused unimaginable devastation: so many lives lost, so many more forever changed due to long-COVID, so many people affected by treatment delays throughout the health service, so many suffering the adverse mental health consequences of repeated lockdowns.
I have absolutely no intention of minimising this suffering as I reflect on the possible positive outcomes from the pandemic.
I must also acknowledge that it is much easier to critique decisions with the benefit of hindsight.
With these points in mind, I believe that governments could have used the pandemic as an opportunity to make a collective and concerted effort to introduce a new normal. A great deal could have been achieved simply by removing tax breaks and subsidies from high-carbon industries and redirecting funding to greener initiatives.
The aim would be to make “good” behaviours, those which as less damaging to the environment, more attractive. And to make “bad” behaviours, those which are more damaging to the environment, less attractive.
For example, remove the subsidies from the aviation industry and instead use these funds to improve public transport and incentivise holidays within the UK.
The outcome: Flying would be more expensive, whereas travelling within the UK by public transport would become less expensive and more reliable. Holiday destinations in the UK would be more appealing.
For example, reduce the subsidies given to the automotive sector, and instead improve cycling infrastructure and encourage cycling as a mode of transport, rather than just a hobby or form of exercise. Promote the use of e-cargo bikes as a viable alternative to travelling by car. Discourage private ownership of cars and instead provide a system of pooled electric vehicles which can be hired when needed.
The outcome: Cycling becomes more commonplace and fewer people travel by car. There is a trend towards hiring a pooled car when required rather than private ownership of vehicles.
For example, provide education around cooking and eating seasonally with local produce, or even home-grown produce. Apply a costing system to food which reflects food miles and carbon footprint. Encourage communities to take responsibility for local green spaces, and work together to tend to communal gardens.
The outcome: People become more aware of when different foods are in season. These are less expensive than imported foods which are not in season. A “Dig for Victory” spirit empowers people to grow their own produce.
The messaging around any of these actions would be as important as the action itself. Clear, informative communication about the impacts of climate change and our duty to act, paired with a concise explanation regarding the benefits of these actions, would be key.
These are just a few ideas. I would be interested to hear your thoughts – please leave me a comment!
