Is COVID-19 good news for the climate? Probably not [1/2]
Few weeks ago, the pollution monitoring satellites of NASA have detected significant decreases in nitrogen dioxide over China, caused by the effects of the new coronavirus. Satellite images began to circulate on the internet and many thought that this terrible crisis could have had at least one positive effect: stop (or at minimum slow down considerably) climate change.
Greenhouse gas emissions are directly linked to production activities and transport, and both have been greatly reduced by the limitations imposed by all the major economies of the world to stop the spread of the pandemic. In February, the measures taken by China resulted in a 25% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions compared to the same period of 2019: two hundred million tons less, the equivalent of emissions produced in one year by Egypt. According to an estimate, this has avoided at least fifty thousand deaths from air pollution, that is, more than the victims of COVID-19 in the same period. The slowdown in the global economy could have even more significant effects. According to the latest OECD forecasts, in the worst-case scenario examined, the pandemic could reduce the growth of global GDP in 2020 from 3% to 1.5%. In The Conversation , Glen Peters of the Center for International Climate and Environment Research calculated that this could lead to a 1.2% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions compared to 2019. Given that after the publication of the OECD estimates, the prospects economic worsened further, the drop in emissions could be even more marked.
This is good in the short term but what about the long term?
As Peters himself notes, all the recent economic crises (the oil shocks of the 1970s, the collapse of the Soviet bloc, the Asian financial crisis of the 1990s) have been accompanied by reductions in emissions. Indeed, economic crises have been the only moments in the recent history of humanity when the constant growth of emissions has stopped.
Each time, however, the decline has been short-lived, and the economic recovery has led to an increase in emissions. In 2009, the financial crisis resulted in a 0.1% drop in global GDP and a 1.2% drop in carbon dioxide emissions. Again, many spoke of a possible turnaround in the climate crisis. But in 2010 the economic stimulus measures caused a 5.1% increase in emissions, much faster than in the years preceding the crisis.
The reason is that the trend of emissions does not depend only on that of the global economy, but also on the so-called emission intensity, i.e. the quantity of greenhouse gases emitted for each unit of wealth produced. Normally the emission intensity decreases over time due to technological progress, and energy efficiency but during times of crisis this reduction can slow down or stop. Governments have fewer resources to invest in virtuous projects and stimulus measures tend to favor the recovery of traditional productive activities. If China should relaunch the construction of coal plants and other polluting infrastructures in an attempt to restart the economy, in the medium term the negative effects could cancel any improvement due to the drop in emissions.
Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency, warned that the economic crisis produced by the pandemic could have disastrous consequences for the global energy transition. 70% of global clean energy investments depend on public finances. For this, Birol warns, it is essential that stimulus measures give priority to the green economy. In addition, governments could take advantage of the collapse in oil prices to reduce public subsidies to hydrocarbons without causing major reactions, and invest those resources in health.
