"At the moment, we have completely different problems..." "Who knows if we can even afford climate protection anymore..." "We first need to secure jobs..." "When times are tough, sustainability takes a back seat..."
Currently, worries and hardships are driving us worldwide, and all the intense discussions about climate change, Greta, energy transition, or mobility transition have been pushed far into the background. It seems as if these are discussions from another time. Has the "climate change hype" therefore passed? Certainly not. Some claim that climate change will have much more devastating consequences than the virus, albeit in comparison, "in super slow motion."
We need to react to emergencies, and the question arises: Is there a kind of competition between Corona and climate change?
The correct scientific answer to this (as almost always and everywhere) is: It depends (alternatively: you can't say that).
There are politicians worldwide, notably the US President, who are using the Corona crisis to pursue their own agenda and undermine climate protection. In this case, the Corona crisis acts as an accelerant, measures for climate protection are put on hold or not even planned. However, we can assume that even without Corona, the decisions of these politicians would have been more detrimental to climate protection. A sustainable environmental policy shift in the decisions of Donald Trump? Pretty unthinkable before, during, and after the Corona crisis.
So, if we want to think about the development of global climate and measures against further warming, let's rather look at the "Alliance of the Willing": the people, companies, associations, political decision-makers, states that fought for climate protection before Corona or tried to fight for it.
Certainly, the Corona crisis is slowing down the decision-making process to implement climate protection measures. The postponement of climate summits is already visible. Financial leeways are becoming tighter or in some cases no longer exist. But does this spell doom for the climate?
I don't believe so. Firstly, necessity is the mother of invention, as humanity has proven countless times in the past. And secondly, the Corona crisis helps us question existing processes.
Was our life perfect before Corona? Was it practical? Was it healthy? Was it sustainable? Did it truly make us satisfied and happy? Was our entrepreneurial actions effective?
The emergency brake in public, economic, and private life helps us to reevaluate the past. We will discard old habits that have crept in over time but are not sensible. We don't need every meeting face-to-face anymore, we don't need every business trip, not every weekend getaway.
Will we therefore permanently consume less? Probably not, but differently. And we can shape this "difference." This is where politics come in. This is where business leaders come in. This is where each one of us comes in.
What guidelines will we create within which we shape our future, emerge from the crisis, and act more climate-friendly in the long run? Crisis management and sustainability must and can be thought of simultaneously.
For the automotive industry, initial steps in Germany could probably be decided in May. Will it be incentives that are not a copy of the scrappage scheme but rather boost the economy by exclusively promoting sustainable mobility, i.e., e-mobility?
In this way, Corona crisis management would simultaneously accelerate the inevitable transformation from combustion engines to e-mobility. Following this logic, we can think of climate protection and adaptation in every aspect of our lives. And then we would achieve our necessary goals faster than expected, in the long term, and not just because we all sat at home during the global Corona lockdown and inadvertently protected the climate...
What do you think?
