Save The World: COVID, Cooperation, and Climate

The first area Science emphasized was pathogens. “[N]ew pathogens have the potential to reach epidemic or even pandemic proportions,” I wrote. “Policy needs to fund tracking and safe research on these pathogens, fund new drugs and approaches to combat them (these drugs are not very lucrative, so free-market capitalism will not fill the void)….”

I wrote that post as a warning that electing Trump, a man who regularly eschews science, and who seems to rely primarily on his substantial gut, could have broad negative implications for our country and the world. Like most people, I thought Trump would lose the election, but I was worried nonetheless – rightfully so, as it turned out.

Since his inauguration, Trump has realized many people’s worst fears about him. He has dismantled many important health, safety, and environmental regulations. He has committed to withdrawing from the Paris Agreement to combat climate change. He habitually lies about almost everything. He regularly assails the media as fake news, even as he pushes conspiracy theories and false narratives from fringe media outlets.

And, in spite of dire warnings about the potential of a pandemic, Trump presided over the dismantling of an Obama-era pandemic response team. We may never know how this impacted the U.S. response to COVID-19, but we do know that Trump downplayed the threat at every turn as the virus spread through the country.

This is the same disdain for science that has led to the administration’s abysmal response to the existential threat of climate change.

To be fair, there are likely some aspects of the pandemic that might have been worse under a Hillary Clinton presidency. Her administration would’ve taken a more proactive, science-based approach that probably would have stemmed the tide much earlier. But imagine how the Regressives would have reacted to a Democrat essentially shutting down the country. Donald Trump and Fox News (and most Republicans in Congress) would have been actively fomenting division and possibly inciting violence – the country might have quickly devolved into chaos. Tearing things down is what Regressives do best, and it works to their benefit.

As it stands now, although there are grumblings of discontent, we have reached a sort of détente. Trump has been forced to listen to some reason, as it’s the only chance he has for reelection. Flying in the face of all they’ve ever worked for, Republican politicians have enacted big government bailouts to try to keep the country on life support, even as it balloons the national debt (something they apparently already gave up on with Trump’s egregious tax cuts of 2017).

As I wrote in that 2016 post: “One picture that emerges here is that we need BIG government – we need big government because we need an institution that coordinates massive efforts. We need to pool our money to invest in things that don’t fit in to the supply-and-demand scheme of free-market capitalism (hey, maybe we could call this pooling of money ‘taxation’). We need smart regulation because, without it, laissez-faire might as well mean ‘let us be assholes.'”

One positive thing to arise from this pandemic is massive worldwide coordination and cooperation. Not that every country is a good actor, and not that the situation wouldn’t have been much better with more genuine world leadership. But the idea that billions of people could work mostly together, sacrificing so much to help curb the pandemic. That’s encouraging.

This is the kind of global effort we will need to fight climate change. The difference, though, is fighting climate change won’t require so much sacrifice. In fact, it should lead to better outcomes in most people’s lives. In a recent op-ed, António Guterres, secretary general of the UN, wrote:

Recently the International Renewable Energy Agency released data showing that transforming energy systems could boost global G.D.P. by $98 trillion by 2050, delivering 2.4 percent more G.D.P. growth than current plans. Boosting investments in renewable energy alone would add 42 million jobs globally, create health care savings eight times the cost of the investment, and prevent a future crisis.

Additionally, the United Nations Emissions Gap Report (2019) presented the following figure, indicating that most climate change mitigation options will have positive effects for the Sustainable Development Goals.

As a perennial Pollyanna, I have even more optimistic feelings about the prospects of climate change mitigation. Renewable energy (especially solar and wind) is emerging as the cheapest source of energy, with prices continuing to drop. In addition to mitigating billions of tons of carbon each year, the shift to renewable energy will ultimately provide cheap energy to the entire world.

With abundant, clean, cheap energy, imagine the potential for global production. Food will become much cheaper to produce, and will utilize a much smaller land footprint as much production moves to indoor, vertical farming (which will also greatly reduce the need for chemicals). Most goods, too, will be cheaper to produce. And the transportation sector will become more and more electrified, making this greener and less costly. With cheap energy, food, goods, transportation, and greater automation, people will have all their needs met while working less – thus we will have much more free time to pursue creative projects and leisure activities. Accompanying this, I believe, will be an increased adherence to a land ethic – a recognition that the global community humans are a part of includes all life and systems on Earth.

In short, global cooperation on combating climate change is an opportunity for humans, and the planet, to thrive.

But…

But of course all these ideas seem wildly optimistic. Maybe these are the yearnings of a hopeless naïf, but I do think it’s possible for humans to at least move in this direction (it may even be inevitable). We can’t undo our cumulative knowledge, our technological innovations, even much of our moral edifice – the moral arc bends toward justice.

To me, the catalyst that will deliver us to the promised land more quickly is a reinvigorated respect for our institutions of knowledge. Ultimately, isn’t happiness what almost all humans desire most (or more specifically, fulfillment)? Well, we know a lot about how to achieve that fulfillment, and this can be translated into policy, as it has been in the happiest countries in the world.

If we in the United States want to achieve better, more fulfilling outcomes, we need to do away with leadership that is contemptuous of science, facts, knowledge, wisdom, and compassion. This starts with purging our system of the deleterious effects of money. Government by and for the people doesn’t jibe too well with allowing moneyed interests to significantly influence most of our policy.

With less influence from money, politicians will be much more attentive to the actual needs of their constituents. Our politicians will be more likely to rely on science, on what we already know works to make a better society. Science, as well as cooperation, will be our savior from the COVID-19 pandemic. A global effort, based on science and technology already available, could save us from the worst outcomes of a climate catastrophe. Science, knowledge, and compassion have the potential to lead us to a better world.