PANDEMIC SEQUENCE COMPARISON

AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING

The globe has been startled by a worldwide catastrophe. It is resulting in a

tragic number of deaths, making people afraid to leave their homes, and causing
unprecedented economic hardship. Its repercussions are felt all around the planet.
Obviously, I'm referring about COVID-19. However, in a few decades,
another global problem will be described in the same way: climate change. Climate
change might be far catastrophic than this outbreak.
I understand that thinking about a topic like climate change is difficult right
now. When calamity occurs, it's natural to be preoccupied with satisfying our most
basic requirements, especially when the disaster is as severe as COVID-19.
However, just because significantly higher temperatures appear distant in the
future does not make them any less of a problem—and the only way to prevent the
worst conceivable climate outcomes is to step up our efforts now. While the world
tries to halt the new coronavirus and starts to recover, we must also move
immediately to avert a climate catastrophe by developing and implementing
breakthroughs that will allow us to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
You may have seen predictions that the globe would produce less
greenhouse emissions this year than last year due to the significant slowdown in
economic activity. While these estimates are undoubtedly accurate, their
significance in the fight against climate change has been exaggerated.
Analysts dispute on how much emissions will fall this year, but the
International Energy Agency estimates an 8 percent drop. In concrete terms, this
implies that instead of 51 billion tons of carbon, we will discharge roughly 47
billion.
That's a significant reduction, and we'd be in excellent condition if we could
maintain that rate of decline year after year. We're afraid we can't.
Consider the effort required to accomplish this 8% decrease. More than
600,000 people have perished, and millions more are unemployed. Car traffic in
April 2019 was half that of April 2019. Air travel was largely halted for months.
 Look at COVID-19 and extend the agony out over a much longer length of
time to get a sense of how much harm climate change will do. This pandemic's
death toll and economic hardship are comparable to what would occur on a regular
basis if global carbon emissions are not reduced.
Let’s look first at the loss of life. How many people will be killed by
COVID-19 versus by climate change? Because we want to compare events that
happen at different points in time the pandemic in 2020 and climate change in, say,
2060 and the global population will change in that time, we can’t compare the
absolute numbers of deaths. Instead, we will use the death rate: that is, the number
of deaths per 100,000 people.
The economic situation is equally dire. Depending on whose economic
model you employ, the range of potential repercussions from climate change and
COVID-19 vary significantly. However, the result is unmistakable: the economic
harm induced by climate change will most likely be as terrible as a COVID-sized
pandemic every 10 years in the next decade or two. And if the world continues on
its present emissions path, it will be considerably worse by the end of the century.
“If we learn the lessons of COVID-19, we can approach climate change
more informed about the consequences of inaction.”
The important thing is that climate change will not be terrible. The main idea
is that if we learn from COVID-19, we may tackle climate change with a better
understanding of the implications of inaction and be better prepared to save lives
and avoid the worst-case scenario. Our approach to the current global crisis can
help us prepare for the next one.
Allow science and creativity to lead. The slight reduction in emissions this
year emphasizes one point: we cannot achieve zero emissions solely or even
primarily by flying and driving less. Of course, for those who can afford it, such as
myself, cutting back is a good thing. Even when the epidemic is ended, I expect
that many individuals will utilize teleconferencing to substitute some business
travel. However, the world should use more energy in general, not less, as long as
it is clean.
So, just as we need new diagnostics, treatments, and vaccinations to combat
the novel coronavirus, we also need new instruments to combat climate change:
zero-carbon methods to generate power, create things, grow food, keep our
buildings cool and warm, and transport people and products around the world.
New seeds and other innovations are also required to assist the world's poorest
people, many of whom are smallholder farmers, in adapting to a less predictable
environment.
Any comprehensive solution to climate change would require input from a
variety of disciplines. Climate science explains why we need to address this issue,
but not how to do so. Biology, chemistry, physics, political science, economics,
engineering, and other sciences will be required.
Make sure that solutions work for both rich and poor countries. We don't yet
know how COVID-19 will affect the world's poorest people, but I'm worried that
by the time it's through, they'll have gotten the worst of it. Climate change is the
same way. The poorest individuals on the planet will be the hardest hit.
Consider the influence of climate change on mortality rates. According to a
recent analysis published by Climate Impact Lab, while climate change would
increase the worldwide death rate, the general average will mask a huge
discrepancy between wealthy and poor nations. Climate change will raise death
rates in poor nations near or below the Equator, where the weather will become
increasingly hotter and more erratic, more than anyplace else.
The economic trend will most likely be the same: a little loss in global GDP,
but big drops in poorer, hotter nations.
Furthermore, sustainable energy sources must be affordable enough for low-
and middle-income countries to purchase. These countries want to expand their
economies by adding factories and contact centers; if this expansion is fueled by
fossil fuels, which are now the most cost-effective choice, it will be much more
difficult to achieve zero emissions.
When a coronavirus vaccine is developed, organizations like GAVI will be
ready to ensure that it reaches the world's poorest people. However, there is no
GAVI for renewable energy. As a result, governments, inventors, and
entrepreneurs all around the world must work on making green technology
affordable enough for developing nations to not only demand, but also afford them.
Begin right now. Climate change, unlike the new coronavirus, for which I
believe a vaccine will be available next year, does not have a two-year fix. All of
the clean-energy breakthroughs we require will take decades to develop and
implement. We need to make a strategy to avert a climate disaster to employ the
zero-carbon instruments we now have, to develop and implement the many
breakthroughs we still need, and to assist the poorest people in adapting to the
already-locked-in temperature rise. Even though I'm focused on COVID-19 these
days, I'm still investing in promising new clean energy technology, developing
programs to assist breakthroughs expand globally, and making the case for
investing in solutions that will mitigate the worst effects of climate change.
Some governments and corporate investors are pledging cash and policies to
help us reach our goal of zero emissions, but we need more. And we need to
respond with the same haste as we did with COVID-19.
For years, health activists predicted that a pandemic would occur. We are
now attempting to make up for lost time since the globe did not do enough to
prepare. This is a climate change cautionary tale that guides us in the right
direction. We can avoid making the same error with climate change if we act
immediately, harness the power of research and creativity, and guarantee that
solutions benefit the poorest.