Global carbon emissions have seen a spectacular crash as a result of large-scale economic lockdowns across the world due to the coronavirus pandemic. Recent estimates suggest that the pandemic could lead to anywhere between a 5-8% reduction in global carbon emissions in 2020. This number is comparable to what would occur if just India alone–whose contribution to annual global carbon emissions has averaged at 7% for the past three years–completely stopped emissions for a year. Experts have warned, however, that this steep decline will be short-lived as lockdowns begin to ease, economies reopen, and people return to normal daily activities over the year. If the 2008 financial crisis is anything to go by, we can likely expect a swift, if not an immediate, return to business and emissions as usual.
But more than a quick return to pre-pandemic emissions levels, what concerns several experts is that the current situation will lead to an overall weakening of national commitments to climate action. In climate policy circles, concerns about countries following their international obligations stem primarily from the postponement of the 26th Conference of Parties (COP26) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) from November 2020 to November 2021. The COP26 meeting was to be the most important international climate conference since the historic Paris Agreement of 2015, where over 195 countries reached a consensus on climate action via Nationally Determined Contributions. World leaders were to undertake a global “stocktake” of progress on national commitments at COP26, as well as encourage new commitments by member nations. UK’s leading climate scholar Nicholas Stern reacted to the postponement of COP26 by saying, “This is such an urgent challenge and there is so much to do, and so much valuable work that is being done, that we can’t afford to lose the momentum.”
These concerns are compounded by the enactment of critical legislations by the world’s leading economies–who are also the most extensive global carbon emitters–that are easing environmental restrictions on industries, supposedly in a bid to aid their survival and recovery from the economic impacts of the pandemic.
For instance, in the United States, President Donald Trump has weakened Obama-era MATS regulations on mercury pollution from coal and oil-fired power plants. By altering the method of cost-benefit analysis, Trump has not removed the standards but has paved the way for power industries to challenge the existing directives in court. Also, federal lending regulations are being modified to allow oil firms–many of whom have been in dire financial trouble since before the pandemic began–easier access to federal loans. Further, in March, the Trump administration lowered automobile emission reductions targets from 5% to 1.5% per year. The US Federal government’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has acknowledged that this could lead to an additional emission of 867 million tonnes of CO2 from automobiles sold over the next decade.
Similarly, Australia’s Energy Minister Angus Taylor in April endorsed a “gas-led recovery” plan for the nation, suggesting that it should capitalize on low global oil prices to aid economic recovery and boost its strategic oil reserves. Taylor advocated for more onshore drilling, gas-peaking plants, and supply of gas to manufacturers for the long-term. Moreover, in March, the state of Victoria lifted its moratorium on onshore exploration for conventional oil and gas resources. In the absence of any long-term energy transition plans, experts are saying that these policy changes are going to lock in investments and support for fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. The Australian government is pursuing this policy track despite several reports indicating that the continent country has the technical capacity to reach ambitious renewable energy goals if the market and policy landscape is made favourable.
The picture emerging from China about its post-pandemic climate mitigation efforts is also bleak. Just over a month ago, news outlets from across the world drew attention to the spectacular fall in emissions witnessed in China, with a study pegging emissions reductions at a whopping 25% in February. Now, however, experts have raised alarms as they become increasingly doubtful about China’s ability to meet its Paris Agreement goals. This is because it seems to be turning towards “dirty” industries such as coal and steel to kickstart its economy, with a focus on heavy industrial output and infrastructure construction. In March, the Chinese government approved five coal-fired power plants, and analysts expect many more to be announced later in the year.
Likewise, at home, after instating the world’s largest coronavirus lockdown in March 2020, the Indian government released a new draft for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), allowing post-facto approvals of projects that have already been launched before being granted an environmental clearance (EC). The amendment also exempts activities like extraction, dredging, and desilting projects from requiring an EC, among other dilutions. For a country that has already failed to work towards its key Paris pledge to increase its carbon sink by adding forests and tree cover worth almost 3 billion tonnes of CO2 by 2030, easing EC restrictions only threatens to exacerbate the existing problem. A report jointly produced by IndiaSpend and the Pulitzer Centre revealed that India’s Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) approved 2,256 project proposals between July 2014 and April 2020, of which 278 were granted for projects immediately surrounding, or in, Protected Areas like national parks and wildlife sanctuaries.
See also: The Fundamental Flaws of India’s Natural Disaster Response System
Further, in India’s fiscal stimulus package announcement on 13 May, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman allocated INR 50,000 crores to mined coal evacuation infrastructure and removed the “distinction between captive and non-captive mines” for the smooth transfer of mine leases and mineral surplus sale. Over the past few months, the government has also encouraged foreign investment in Indian energy projects, signed international energy agreements–such as the Exxon deal with Indian Oil to domestically transport American crude and fossil fuels via new pipelines–and approved two underground mining projects. At the same time, clean energy consultants Bridge to India reported that at 989 MW, India only reached a third of its solar power generation target due to disruptions caused by the lockdown in the year’s first quarter. This slowdown is likely to continue until the end of the year. Experts have voiced their apprehensions about the Centre’s encouragement of coal production at a time when the need to cut down on emissions has never been more apparent. According to a February report by the World Wildlife Fund, India stands not only to lose ecological cover but also over 1.5% of its GDP by 2050 due to environmental degradation if it continues its current path of “business as usual”.
Even in Brazil, where environmental protection efforts have already been scaled back due to social distancing norms, Environment Minister Ricardo Salles has called for the government to use the pandemic to push for further environmental deregulation, sparking outrage among climate activist groups.
But not all hope is lost. In an article for Financial Times, Christiana Figueres, former Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, stressed that pandemic-related financial decisions, which will shape the global economy for the next decade, must be bundled together with climate goals. In the same spirit, to continue climate dialogue in the absence of the COP26, 30 world leaders met online at the 11th annual Petersberg Climate Dialogue (PCD) on 22-23 April to discuss methods of green economic recover post-pandemic so that states can continue with robust climate action despite the postponement of COP26. The discussions included not just the creation of green jobs, but also the designing of climate-committed fiscal stimulus programmes with a special focus on reforming transport and power sectors.
On a regional level, the most significant example of progressive policymaking with a two-pronged perspective is the European Union’s pandemic recovery plan, which has been appreciated by investors, companies, and environmental groups alike. Last week, the EU unveiled its €750 billion coronavirus recovery plan and a separate €1.1 trillion fund which budget billions of euros for clean transport, renewable energy, hydropower, and energy-efficient innovations and renovations. The bloc’s executive body, the European Commission, also proposed that a quarter of its budget be devoted to climate action, with the hope of creating almost a million new green jobs by 2030.
Similarly, while New Zealand has a long way to go in climate action spending to reach its own carbon-neutral goal by 2050, it has planned a massive $1 billion investment in “nature-based” green jobs. Even the United Arab Emirates’ Minister of Climate Change and Environment, Dr Thani bin Ahmed al Zeyoudi, in a research paper, suggested that the Gulf power, whose tourism-based economy was terribly hit by the virus outbreak, should implement regulations that allow for an increased onshoring of business operations to lower the country’s greenhouse gas emissions. Further, the African Union (AU) Commission has agreed to work closely with the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) to rapidly advance renewable energy efforts across the continent to bolster its response to COVID-19.
Climate experts also believe that the economic disruption has opened up unprecedented possibilities that can support “deep decarbonization” measures. The potential for climate-centric pandemic exit strategies has led to a global movement, with 200 organizations representing more than 40 million health workers writing to G20 countries to follow sustainable green recovery plans.
Therefore, while the coronavirus pandemic has caused unprecedented hiccups in reducing global emissions to meet the 2030 Paris goals, intense lobbying from relevant groups to ensure a long and concerted effort can ensure a continued movement towards globalized climate action. We are already witnessing fantastic leadership by the EU and the AU in working towards these goals. Other countries and regional bodies must follow suit to mitigate ongoing and impending health crises and climate change-induced disasters. There is an urgent need for world powers to reprioritize emissions targets and explore immediate green recovery actions that can be taken within localized contexts that are good for both the economy and climate mitigation efforts.
Mallika Talwar is a guest writer for Statecraft. She is a graduate student at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies (soon to be the Yale School of the Environment), specializing in Climate Change Policy and People, Equity, and the Environment.