Can the pandemic help us tackle climate change?
Have the clear skies and fresh air induced by Covid-19 lockdowns helped reach a tipping point on action to alleviate the climate emergency? Now there seems to be momentum. A bunch of governments, including the US and China (the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases), have recently set ambitious targets (by previous standards) to reduce emissions.
It has taken a while to get to the point where the existential damage to the planet is being taken seriously. Scientists have been sounding the alarm since the 19th century.
In the 1820s, French physicist Joseph Fourier concluded that, when returning to space, some of the energy that had reached the planet as sunlight must be trapped within the atmosphere, keeping the Earth warm in the way a glass greenhouse would.
Irish scientist John Tyndall’s lab tests in the 1860s showed that coal gas — containing carbon dioxide, methane and volatile hydrocarbons — was especially effective at absorbing energy and heat in the atmosphere. Eunice Foote on the other side of the Atlantic was conducting similar research and probably beat him to the same conclusion. In the 1930s, English scientist Guy Stewart Callendar suggested a doubling of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere would warm the Earth by 2°C.
Despite 200 years of research and alarm sounding, it is only in the past 30 years that this existential risk has been taken seriously.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1989, with the Rio summit of 1992 marking the first major Framework Convention on Climate Change, signed by more than 150 nations. They promised to work towards preventing “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”. Agreements in Kyoto (1997) and Paris (2015) followed (though Copenhagen in 2009 ended in failure).
DISASTERS
Meanwhile, the actual effect of climate change has become increasingly evident. Between 1998 and 2017, climaterelated disasters are estimated to have caused direct economic losses of $2.245bn, killed 1.3-million people and left 4.4-million injured, homeless, displaced or in need of emergency assistance.
Compare the slow reaction to the climate emergency with the Covid-19 pandemic. Cities emptied, airlines grounded, borders closed. The wheels of production curtailed. The theatre and the arts shuttered. Maybe it is the slow timescale of climate change that doesn’t precipitate urgency and a willingness to accept difficult policy choices.
Yet the policy changes required to mitigate climate change are far less disruptive — economically, socially and culturally — than the measures that were needed to tackle Covid. You can still hug grandma and save the planet.
This raises the question, if such radical decisions can be taken to tackle a global virus, can the same appetite for radicalism not be extended to the existential challenge to the planet?
One obvious area is transport, a huge contributor to carbon emissions. Zoom, remote working and less business travel can hugely help reduce emissions. If you talk to the big consultancy firms they will tell you the large corporates here in SA, in particular in service industries, are already way down this road in terms of commercial leases and talent planning.
SMART BUSINESS
Another key driver is pressure on companies from environmental, social & governance (ESG) and affect investors. In April, Sasol and Synfuels launched a tender to procure 900MW of renewable energy. The largest green power procurement deal in this country, it is worth R13bn.
This is smart business by Sasol, the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases after Eskom, as it provides a potentially more friendly face for ESG investment funds and investors.
Similarly, Anglo American is looking to reprofile and bolster its ESG credentials, having been frozen out of key investment vehicles such as Norges Bank Investment Management (the world’s largest sovereign fund). Anglo is offloading its thermal coal business. Nedbank too made an announcement that it would get to zero fossil fuel exposure by 2045.
Even nuclear energy, once about as welcome as a drunken uncle at a wedding, is back in vogue. It might have had a bad reputation, but it is clean and its technology is increasingly affordable. Yet coal will remain dominant in SA. It is too important. About 6,000 people work in mines and it is a key export.
However, as my electricity bill doubled in a year as I work from home (and, to be honest, Eskom never fully had my confidence), I am making the switch to solar. In a country with more sunshine hours than most places, I suspect many others will follow.
●