3
THE time will inevitably come when we are able to look back on the current pandemic with mixed emotions — a mixture of horror and despair, and in all too many cases, a sense of bereavement.
Yet, buried beneath the plethora of daily reports about the still unfolding health emergency and economic catastrophe, far less depressing stories have occasionally cropped up. Stories of uncommonly blue skies over New Delhi and Lahore. Of fresh air in Beijing. Of wildlife proliferating, of vibrantly hued flowers blooming with renewed vigour, of birdsong bursting forth in milieus where it had long been drowned out by the discordant symphony of mechanisation, and in some cases of animals setting out to investigate the built environment that has long encroached on their natural habitat.
The temporary cessation of human activity in varying degrees across the world inevitably led to a huge drop in greenhouse gas emissions, even though the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide continued to rise. This is a reminder of the extent to which the environment we live in is affected by our way of life. But that hardly counts as a revelation — we’ve known it for ages, and only numbskulls or motivated ideologues any longer question the anthropogenic contribution to climate change.
If only it could be easier to breathe in the post-pandemic world.
Almost all environmentalists agree that what we have lately witnessed was an anomaly rather than a turning point. The ongoing return to ‘normality’ — welcome in many ways to most people — means economic activity will sooner or later return to something resembling its previous levels. That’s largely a blessing for billions of people. In certain ways, though, it can also be seen as a curse.
To take an esoteric example, consider the tourist hotspots in countries such as Italy and Spain. Locals in Barcelona and Rome have long been militating against the routine invasions by hordes of sightseers from abroad, who crowd out the city centres and are blamed for rising prices in general and exorbitant rents in particular. The complaints are valid, and in recent weeks, amid easing restrictions, there have been reports about residents rediscovering in relative tranquillity local attractions such as museums.
At the same time, though, the absence of international tourism takes a terrible toll on the economy. Much like cheap flights, it’s both a blessing and a curse. Global travel has become considerably more affordable in the past few decades, which is decidedly worth hailing as an advance — but not unequivocally. The ability to venture abroad is a positive: it tends to broaden minds, perhaps even when the priority is to sightsee via the lens of a smartphone camera.
On the other hand, the aircraft crisscrossing the skies contribute heavily to atmospheric pollution. The near cessation of passenger flights, alongside a sharp drop in terrestrial travel, was among the major contributors to the remarkable fall in emissions in recent months. No one is calling for the cessation of air travel. It is essential in some cases, almost mandatory in others. Yet many short-haul flights are surely surplus to requirements where a rail alternative is available, and it is always galling to read about CEOs flying in on their private jets to Davos to burnish their green credentials.
The controversial recent film Planet of the Humans, removed from YouTube for copyright violations but now back up once more, makes some pertinent points about how some corporations have painted themselves green primarily from a profit motive. On the other hand, plenty of its criticisms of wind and solar power have been ripped to shreds by critics who hold no candle for capitalism.
More broadly, in many spheres of life, the idea is to strive for a balance. Of course, that isn’t advisable in certain cases. It would — or at least should — never be acceptable, for instance, to say or imply that a little bit of racist, ethnic, caste or sectarian bias is fine as long as it steers clear of Ku Klux Klan, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh or Taliban territory.
On the other hand, who could seriously object to fewer flights where convenient alternatives are available, or to fewer private vehicles where public transport is efficient? And why would anyone object to the use of fossil fuels being ramped down at far greater speed where more sustainable sources of energy are viable?
A study last month concluded that the present trajectory of climate change would make large parts of the planet — including much of India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Indonesia and Sudan — unlivable in 50 years. Late last year, meanwhile, a report from the Global Alliance on Health and pollution found that India, China, Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan and the US accounted for the highest number of deaths from pollution.
A future in which humanity coexists with birdsong and blooming flowers in both conceivable and desirable, but it requires action. It’s now or never, as Elvis Presley sang. And in the long run, as John Maynard Keynes aptly put it, we’re all dead.
Published in Dawn, June 10th, 2020
