For us here in Tyrol, having a clear view of mountaintops is not unusual. On that account, imagine what it must be like, being surrounded by mountains, yet never catching a glimpse of them because the sight is obstructed by dense smog. Only during a global crisis, the pollution lifts and unveils the proud peaks of a mountain you previously were unaware of.
As towns were liberated of thick fumes, previously shrouding familiar streets and houses, this is what many people experienced:
For years, northern India has battled air pollution with levels hitting the hazardous mark during the winter season. Now, during a nationwide lockdown, air pollution in the region has dropped to a 20-year low, according to data published by NASA. https://t.co/e4DAo1LBUq
— CNN (@CNN) April 25, 2020
Decreasing emissions have been quantifiable in many locations as soon as strict quarantine measures were put into place across the globe. In India, atmospheric levels of nitrogen oxides (NOx – a term coined to include both NO and NO2) are lower by 40-50% compared to last year. Researches based in New York measured a reduction of carbon monoxide concentration in the atmosphere by 50% compared to last year’s values.
Nevertheless, observations of remote locations are not necessary to discern differences in atmospheric composition. Right here at our doorstep the „Innsbruck Atmospheric Observatory” (IAO) measured a drastic reduction of NOx-concentrations during the first weeks of fortified isolation. To find our more, you can visit their blog.
Laboratory set-up of the Innsbruck Atmospheric Observatory (© courtesy of IAO)
These noticeable changes triggered mixed responses in social media. Many declare the societal consequences of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic to be the “salvation” of climate change. Wilder notions even (jokingly) pursue the hypothesis of the virus being developed by environmentalists to act against global warming.
However, the worldwide lifting of smog is not a reason to complacently lean back in one’s chair and expect “nature” to take care of “herself”. Temporarily receding emissions, while wielding immediate positive effects on the environment, are insufficient in counteracting global warming.
Crash Course: Air Pollutants vs. Greenhouse Gases
Before we make hasty conclusions, it is essential to establish common ground and differentiate between air pollutants and greenhouse gases, seeing their environmental implications vary.
On one hand, greenhouse gases are responsible for keeping temperatures on earth stable. This is achieved by accumulating gases in the atmosphere, which either reflect sun radiation back to the earth’s surface or absorb it. Anthropogenic activity such as combustion of fossil fuels, excessive land use and deforestation have led to unrestrained amassment of gases over the past centuries. As a result, more heat is trapped and cannot escape into space.
Under natural circumstances – that is to say, without humans – the atmosphere is capable of self-regulating this so-called greenhouse effect, together with a few helpers. Through cleavage of gases, or assimilation by plants and microbes, the resulting chemical compounds are channelled back into their respective systemic cycles.
However, this poses a problem. In comparison to our fleeting existence on this planet, the rate at which some of these processes occur can be excruciatingly slow. For instance, reverting atmospheric CO2 (the most abundant greenhouse gas) to pre-Holocene levels by natural means would take up to two thousand years.
Ramifications of this so-called greenhouse effect include changes of climatic events – ranging between melting ice caps, increased manifestation of natural disasters and changes in patterns of wind- and oceanic oscillation. Subsequently, this leads to irreversible damage within ecosystems, whilst potentially rendering the planet inhospitable in the long run.
Airborne pollutants, such as NOx, on the other hand, have a more immediate impact on the environment and its inhabitants. According to WHO estimates, long-term respiratory exposure to air pollution result in 4,2 million deaths every year. Not only organisms with intricate pulmonary physiology fall victim to air pollution. At higher levels, NOx have been proven to deposit in plant tissue, injuring leaves, hindering photosynthesis and suppressing growth. Unlike greenhouse gases, these pollutants are short-lived. NOx, for instance, have a residence time of around ten hours. As a result, these gases do not accumulate in the atmosphere over long periods of time.
Why does this differentiation matter?
An immediate decrease of air pollutants in the atmosphere was to be expected once industrial as well as day-to-day activities subsided. Professor Thomas Karl, head of IAO, explains: „The residence time of NOx ist very short. Hence, changes in their emissions are rapidly reflected in changes of local atmospheric concentrations. CO2 is different, in the sense that it stays in the atmosphere for much longer.“
So, once pollutants have faded, they are gone. Finito. Nada. CO2, however – from a human point of view – stays forever.
Both gases are not completely unrelated. Seeing both are created through combustion of fossil fuels, a dip in air pollutant emissions can be correlated to a decrease of CO2 emissions. Although air pollutants inarguably infringe our ecosystem and health, the most pressing long-term crisis we are facing is the ever-growing intensity of the greenhouse effect. Lucky for us, we could minimise both predicaments in one go.
Thus, it does not come as a surprise that the most urgent goals for the future is to steer away from fossil fuels as a primary energy source and opt for sustainable alternatives. A difficult undertaking, seeing our society and economy appear to have a near-pathological dependency on fossil fuels, either directly (by making billions through trading oil on the market), or indirectly (by relying on combustion of fossil fuels as an energy source).
Lock-down will not affect climate change
Deniers on social media question the verity of climate change by arguing that in spite of plummeting anthropogenic activity no corresponding changes are seen in CO2 emissions.
It’s all garbage. We should be seeing massive decline in CO2 levels. #climate https://t.co/h5nyQ2dicj
— Alan Poirier (@alan_poirier) April 28, 2020
At the base of this argument is the Keeling curve, which visualises measurements of the exponential accumulation of atmospheric CO2 since 1958. In other words, every year the levels keep rising continuously. How come there is no visible change now?
We can compare the current situation with the stock market crash in 2008, where, according to data published by World Bank, the rate of change of worldwide GDP deflated by -2% (compared to -3% deflation projected for 2020 by the IMF). Similar to present day, there was a reduction of industrial activity, which, back then, was predicted to be congruent with a decrease of CO2 emissions.
To a certain extent, these projections did manifest in later CO2 evaluation. However, these changes were disappointingly miniscule and rapidly followed by a drastic increase of emissions as soon as industrial activity picked up again. This is noticeable in a graph published by the International Energy Agency.
In retrospect, CO2 emissions did not come to a halt in 2008. In fact, there was a rise of 1,7%, in comparison to nearly twice as much in the preceding year.
To face away from the past and look at the present, let us see what current speculations hold in place. Glen Peters, (Center of international Climate Research) assumes a decline of CO2 emissions to lie between 0,3-1,2%, while a more optimistic prognosis by Rob Jackson (Global Carbon Project) speculates a reduction by 5%.
Sounds good enough? Unfortunately, it is not. Currently, the maximum increase of temperature our planet can endure in the following 10 years is set at 1,5 Degrees Celsius by the IPCC. To reach this target, an annual reduction of global CO2 by around 10% is a requisite. This would call for a consequential energy-efficient reorganisation of all market sectors.
UNEP: 1.5C climate target ‘slipping out of reach’ | @hausfath @robbie_andrew https://t.co/dGUfgnegzf pic.twitter.com/nb2bs6xd4O
— Carbon Brief (@CarbonBrief) January 4, 2020
“A fundamental transformation of energy production is necessary to reduce CO2 emissions sustainably. This will not be possible merely through a lock-down and a complete cutback of economic activity”, explains Prof. Karl, IAO. So far, little has been done to instigate such a transformation.
China serves as a splendid example to assess what many countries are facing as soon as financial recovery is imminent. Due to extreme restrictions exerted on the population upon emergence of the virus, the number of cases in China remained stagnant for the past few weeks. This was followed by a recent a resurgence of economic activity. Simultaneously, recordings made by the Copernicus satellite belonging to the European Union’s Earth Observation Programme space station detected an increase of NOx above China. Judging by how environmental concerns have been pushed aside by numerous policymakers, many countries may share a similar fate if nothing is done to counteract.
Current global concerns predominantly revolve around recuperation of financial stability. In particular, it appears that the US-government perceives this pandemic to be a tremendous (“it’s gonna be yuge, so great”) opportunity to pursue anti-environmental interests. This encompasses being heavily lobbied by their good old fossil fuel “friends”, whilst classifying the construction of the Mariner East Pipeline and other oil-critical infrastructure as essential work during the pandemic.
My latest: Fossil fuel companies have taken at least $50M in coronavirus aid, they are seeking a broader bailout from the Trump administration and they got the Fed to let them take out loans to pay off their existing debt. With research w/ @jessebcoleman https://t.co/DBzTLp1b6Z
— Emily Holden (@emilyhholden) May 1, 2020
Subsidising fossil fuel industries seems to be the “starter kit” for the majority of economic rescue plans. Policy makers give the impression of having adapted the attitude of pushing aside environmental concerns, considering it to be an issue for another time. As most of us probably know from experience, procrastination might always be an “easy” way out at first, yes – the aftermath, when all comes crushing down, however, is all but “easy”.
What if we could kill two birds with one stone? What if we could create economic “starter kits” without sacrificing the environment and our health? In his address at the Petersberg Climate Dialogue on April 28th, António Guterres, head of UN, urges policymakers to reconsider their economic plans of action. He describes the current situation as an opportunity to transition into a sustainable future.
„We have a rare and short window of opportunity to rebuild our world for the better“, Guterres announced.
Many argue that in order to get economy back on track, investing in carbon-related business practices is the most infallible way to go. This does not have to be the case.
“Where taxpayers’ money is needed to rescue businesses, it must be creating green jobs and sustainable and inclusive growth. It must not be bailing out out-dated, polluting, carbon-intensive industries.” Guterres exclaimed.
A recovery from the #COVID19 crisis must not take us back to where we have been before the pandemic.
It is an opportunity to build more sustainable and inclusive societies — a more resilient and prosperous world.https://t.co/D6bN0rKQJu
— António Guterres (@antonioguterres) April 29, 2020
Economic instability has drawbacks on environmental protection
Before generally labelling economic activity it to be the root of all-evil, we have to keep a few things in mind. Science, research and development of sustainable technologies are driven by economy. An article by Steve Cohen published in a newsroom named “State of the Planet”, belonging to the Earth Institute of Columbia University, demonstrates how portrayal of economy and environmental protection as two conflicting entities is fallacious. In fact, both can exert positive influence on one another.
„Environmental protection itself contributes to economic growth. Somebody makes and sells the air pollution control technologies we put on power plants and motor vehicles. Somebody builds the sewage and water treatment facilities. […] and whoever invents the 1,000-mile high capacity battery that will power electric cars someday will become very, very rich. And environmental amenities are worth money” – Steve Cohen, Jan. 27th 2020
Even though majority of global market leaders pertain to the oil industry, one must not forget that many other participants in the global market rely on fossil fuels not because they directly 
profit from them, but because it is the most inexpensive, accessible and widely used source of energy. To change this outlook, investments have to be made to refine and improve current technology for sustainable power. Only in this manner a subsequent shift away from fossil fuels towards a new default energy source is feasible.
Current events are also having negative economic implications on a more domestic level, in particular countries being close to nature conservatories rich in biodiversity. In order to support infrastructure necessary for environmental protection, adequate financial means are required. The GDP in some of these countries is principally generated through tourism – which, of course, leaves a lot to be argued about in terms of economic (due to it being a highly volatile market) as well as environmental sustainability (due to carbon footprint through air travel and invasive tourist arrangements).
Nearly all nature reserves in East as well as Southern Africa rely heavily on the tourism industry for paying wages to their rangers. If this is not possible, parks remain unguarded. In countries without social welfare and income support, engagement in illegal activities in order to ensure individual survival is to be expected. Examples of such activities include deforestation, mining of raw materials, as well as poaching. Increase in such activity has already been observed in South Africa.
Not only countries of Sub-Saharan Africa have been experiencing repercussions on environmental enforcement due to on-going recession. Brazilian authorities also fear an increase of deforestation, as the amazon rainforest remains unmonitored. Furthermore, in the event of emergence of wildfires, a quick response would be mandatory.
Considering all these aspects, it becomes clear that a continuing recession, if not even financial depression, will have negative connotations on groundwork necessary for environmental protection.
Steven Cohen writes:
„It is ironic that some environmentalists along with some climate deniers share the belief that we must trade off economic growth and environmental protection. We can and must accomplish both.“
Hence, to say economy is responsible for environmental deterioration is erroneous. The real culprit to blame in this equation is economic dependence of fossil fuels. Accordingly, a flourishing economy based on ecological sustainability will pave a road into a future we all can relish.
Climate mitigation through Home Office
The usually busy junction between the main library and clinic was eerily empty during the first week of lock-down (© courtesy of IAO)
After reading this, one might think ‘not my problem’, shrug it off, and fall back into the dark “quarantine” abyss of scrolling through social media until night comes by. Before adapting this attitude, it is important to remember that change lies not only in the hands of the 2% that “rule” the world. Daily activities and individual choices of all earthly citizens can contribute to making our habitat enjoyable again.
For the individual, heavy financial investments and delicate political ties are not necessary for a transformation. It merely requires a change of habit. Habits are like software, and software can be reprogrammed, re-coded and de-bugged. Antonio Guterres’ words are not only applicable on the level of policy makers, but also on the level of consumers, ergo, us. So, these demanding times could be the spark we needed: an opportunity to transition our deep-rooted mannerisms into more sustainable habits.
Risks can be associated in falling back to old habitual patterns once day to day life reverts back to normal. After being cooped up for so long within the same four walls there may be the possibility of overcompensation, and overconsumption once the SARS-CoV-2 crisis is over. Perhaps, we could involuntarily learn something about new ways of day-to-day interactions, such as online-conferences, virtual therapy, digital lectures and “home-office”.
Maybe, this is an incentive, which proves to us that some activities do not require commuting in certain locations, but can be accomplished from home. Possibly, some of us will realise it is not necessary to drive a car to work or university every day. In the end, that is what we should hold on to.
