What can we learn from governments' responses to Covid-19 that will stimulate more urgent action to tackle climate change? How can governments more rapidly translate soundbites like 'Green New Deal' to a sustainable reality?
As governments around the world have responded with unprecedented urgency to the health and economic challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic, the need to address climate change with a similar degree of urgency has been widely stated. In a number of countries economic recovery plans have included significant investments that target environmental improvement, and the concepts of ‘Building Back Better’ and a ‘Green New Deal’ have gained widespread traction. Examples include UK government support for the deployment of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and the development of an extensive hydrogen infrastructure.
Technologies such as these will be critical in enabling CO2 targets for 2050 to be met but the multi-billion dollar investments required for their initial deployments are, in most instances, too large for corporate budgets alone. In the absence of a direct financial cost per tonne of CO2 emitted, the economic benefits to industry from adopting the new technologies will not occur in the early years. First-movers would be disadvantaged as project costs will drop significantly as a result of the experience gained in each deployment, and government support is therefore required to incentivize early action. In some countries associated financial support is committed at a meaningful level whilst in others, if it exists at all, it is too low. Experience shows that promised government investment can also be withdrawn, giving rise to further corporate hesitation.
Given these challenges, what can we learn from responses to Covid-19 with regard to stimulating more urgent action on climate change ? What were the key enablers for the urgent response to the virus and are they applicable to climate change? Looking across a diverse range of countries, and recognizing that there are many outliers, there appear to be three common enablers:
|
Enablers |
Covid 19 |
Climate change |
|
Recognition of the threat |
• Compelling data showing immediate threat to life. • Communicated by governments in direct, impactful and emotive way |
• Disagreements on urgency of action or, in some cases, the need for any action • Government communications are abstract and difficult to understand |
|
Legislation to enforce action |
• Imposition of very strict public health measures on businesses and public with immediate effect • High levels of compliance with legislation |
• Framed in terms of 2030, 2040 and 2050 emission limits with little clarity on how to get there • Corporate net zero commitments for the longer-term future lack immediacy |
|
Government Investment to support action |
• Direct and indirect costs of immediate action eligible for fiscal support • Availability of support well communicated by governments to individuals and businesses |
• Investments are oriented towards longer term development and deployment rather than more immediate actions • Total available support far below Covid levels |
Of the three enablers, recognition of the threat was the most important in the Covid response: it ensured acceptance of, and compliance with, the associated legislation, and created a strong groundswell of public and political support for investment. In effect there was a strong push and pull for action from governments and publics respectively.
For climate change, this push-pull dynamic is nowhere near the same level of intensity. If it were, there would be far greater pull for tougher legislation and higher levels of associated investment. Governments would see far lower political risk in taking action and indeed might well feel compelled to do so.
On the basis of the Covid evidence, achieving these outcomes requires the foundation of a greater public recognition and understanding of the threat posed by climate change, and governments must play a much stronger more role here. While there is a very important role for businesses in strengthening their engagement with the public on climate change and the need for action, there is a high level of cynicism and perceptions of vested interests and ‘greenwashing’ around corporate communications on CO2. Advocacy groups also play an important role but do not always present the broadest perspective and, in some instances, their methods may alienate sections of the public.
So how can governments engage with the public in a really meaningful and impactful way on climate change? Climate communications that are framed in terms of 2 degrees C temperature increases, net zero CO2 targets, and impressive (but completely abstract) reductions in energy consumption, fail to engage the majority of the public. There needs to be a switch away from a statistics and science-based approach to one based on a compelling narrative around individual and national impact. This narrative also needs to integrate the linked challenges of economic and social sustainability: what happens if we do nothing, what changes do we need to make, what will these changes mean for jobs and how will we pay for all of this?
Getting these communications right will strengthen the public pull for action which will in turn legitimize greater government push through legislation and investment. These important steps will help to ramp up the speed of action that will make a real difference to the future of our planet.
Contact us
