The reduction, due to the sudden paralysis of industrial production, office life and air travel, means that 2020 is increasingly likely to register an overall decline in global CO2 emissions, says The Conversation.

What is unclear is whether such changes are just a blip in the timeline, due to measures imposed by the need to get COVID-19 under control, or could be the start of wholesale change in how capitalism operates.

As people across the world convert en masse to remote-working, the coronavirus has become an unlikely moment of reflection on our own work and consumer habits – and, beyond that, how our economic system could work better to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

What will the impact of a virus be on climate change? Image by Elena Mozhvilo / Unsplash

The OECD’s revision of global growth in 2020 from an estimate of 3% down to 2.4% has given hope to proponents of  “degrowth”, the economic shrinkage they say is necessary to reduce both carbon emissions and the toll capitalism puts on the natural environment.

However, opinion is sharply split on whether the sharp rupture brought about by the coronavirus will have any lasting impact on the fight against climate change.
Not only may emissions growth simply resume, spurred on by stimulus packages as after the 2008 global financial crisis, but many believe the current crisis could actively hinder the transition to clean energy. “If the lesson learned is, let’s get back to the status quo ante, then [the virus] probably will slow down the energy transition,” author and climate activist Bill McKibben told CNBC. 

The recent plunge in the price of oil, down to around $20 per barrel, could reignite interest in the sector attracted by the rock-bottom valuation. The Guardian furthermore reports how shrinking growth forecasts could interrupt investment in clean-energy infrastructure; it cites a report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance claiming that solar energy production may fall this year for the first time since the 1980s. Nations indebted by bailouts during the coronavirus might be less willing to invest in such projects.

But others see a historic opportunity in the oil industry’s turmoil – and a possible shift towards cleaner energy driven by a desire for change and more restrained consumer habits during coronavirus quarantine; what the New York Times refers to as “behavioural contagion”. “[Demand reduction] could be the catalyst for rapid change,” Adam Matthews, director of ethics and engagement at the Church of England pensions board, told the Guardian. “And I think investors are going to look at long-term systemic challenges very closely and want to see much greater resilience.”

The great hope is that the unlocking of massive stimulus packages to aid economic recovery in the wake of the coronavirus will simultaneously help promote swifter climate adaptation. Spending this money on green infrastructure could help two crises at once, as this Thomson Reuters piece points out. The city of Eugene, Oregon, is a typical example of a place that has struggled to implement resiliency plans like a green transport network – but could put some of the $2 trillion in federal relief funding to such use.

Whether or not stimulus spending is turned to sustainable ends could depend on the political allegiances of the governments in question – something the coronavirus crisis may inadvertently influence. Currently, under Donald Trump’s administration, the US stimulus fund is prioritising propping up the struggling oil and gas and airline industries – and proposals for it to include elements of the Democrats’ Green New Deal have fallen foul of political stalemate. On the other hand, the necessity for huge stimulus packages could see a renewed willingness of governments to implement tax and spend in order to tackle climate change.