This is my capstone project, the final academic effort as a Galloway graduate. I worked on it throughout the year, and I appreciated the opportunity to adjust my project as I encountered new sources and ideas.
Cover Letter
My vision for my capstone project has evolved over time. At first, I wanted to focus on the social and political ramifications that climate change would be likely to cause over the coming decades. But, I worried about focusing entirely on predictions of the future, and so I shifted into the ways that public opinion can bolster or limit government response. As the coronavirus pandemic evolved, I saw a great opportunity to analyze how the two issues were comparable in terms of public policy. With my peer editor, I refined my language and moved around some of my sentences to communicate more effectively.
What Can Pandemic Public Policy Tell Us About Our Response to Climate Change?
An invisible adversary confronts governments worldwide. Hundreds of thousands of Americans become sick and die, their deaths arguably a result of government folly. This threat was all too apparent for many, as scientific experts advocated strongly for the issue to become a national priority, early and with haste, in order to avoid the worst outcomes. The question of what to do becomes polarized, as those on opposite sides of the proverbial aisle feud over how drastic the institutional response should be. Some call for far-reaching government mandated regulations and planning and accuse others of compromising public health, while others warn of the serious economic consequences and paint their opponents as alarmists. In the coronavirus pandemic, citizens across the world are given a preview of how their elected officials will respond to another peril that might soon threaten our sense of daily life just as drastically as the pandemic has: climate change. The question remains: what action will the world take to combat climate change? Answering this question will be a long, complex process as the world changes in unknown ways, but the pandemic offers a glimpse into what we can expect as governments encounter a similarly invisible and unprecedented threat. Both climate change and the pandemic present a paradox of public policy: when the threat was apparent but far off, elected officials are wary of taking action that would disrupt daily life and heavily alter the economy without widespread public support. But, if action is delayed until the threat is apparent and the public supports substantial methods, policy becomes less effective and must race to make up for lost time; in fact, the economic damage and human fatalities can, in the long run, be substantially larger than if more severe measures were taken earlier. Climate advocates can look to governments’ coronavirus response as a benchmark of how adequately a political establishment combats an invisible and vague peril. What is the state of climate response in the world today? Scientists have long called for the promotion of climate change as a national priority that transcends party lines, and grassroots organizations such as the Sunrise Movement work to pressure politicians into committing to far-reaching prevention and relief policy. Despite this advocacy, the world has so far been unable to turn the corner on climate policy. Without widespread public support, governments are wary to take drastic action, and so far, the threat posed by climate change frequently takes a back seat to issues that are more present in American’s minds. In America, the climate discussion has struggled to become non-partisan, with only 57% of Americans calling climate change a “major threat to the well being of the United States.”1 Even within the Democratic party, among likely primary voters polled in September 2019, 7.4% of respondents said that climate change was their top priority, compared with the top concern, the candidate's ability to beat Donald Trump, which polled at 39.6%.2 These numbers show that, barring an extreme shift in public attitude, climate remains in the background, second to hot-button issues and the regular partisan attitudes. What will the world look like without this extreme shift in public attitude, and what methods can we use to plot our current course? Traditionally, climate change is measured against the benchmark of pre-industrial levels; this is basically our understanding of what the world would look like without any man-made influence. Goals for climate reduction are expressed as degrees warming above this level; this number represents how much the human race has warmed the earth.3 The Paris Agreement sets 1.5 degrees celsius warming above the pre-industrial baseline in 2100 as the world’s goal. As a planet, we are incredibly unlikely to succeed at this goal. Current policies put us on track for 2.8-3.2°, and ‘optimistic policies’ results in 2.5-2.8°, according to the non-profit Climate Action Tracker. The difference between these numbers may appear small, but the science suggests that even a 0.5 difference in warming would mean 61 million more people exposed to severe drought.4 Climate Action Tracker rates the United States, the second biggest polluter worldwide, as ‘critically insufficient’ in our climate response, the worst possible rating. The biggest polluter, China, is rated as ‘highly insufficient'. Currently, no highly developed nation is compatible with the Paris Accord.5 Should climate change trigger the same urgency that has been afforded to the coronavirus response? The numbers may shock you: in the United States alone, 200,000 people die each year from air pollution.6 China has seen its emissions reduce drastically during coronavirus lockdowns - and in the process, has saved an estimated 4,000 children under the age of 5 and 73,000 adults over the age of 70 as a result of a two month reduction in economic activity.7 In America, levels of particulate matter in the ambient air (a common measure of pollutants) fell from 2009 to 2016, but as federal regulations were rolled back in the back half of the decade, these levels have spiked. This increase alone is estimated to have caused 9,700 additional deaths.8 Much of the danger posed by climate change rests in the future, but the American federal government struggles to consistently enforce environmental protections today. So what can the coronavirus pandemic tell us about public policy response? It depends on the country. While it is impossible to know how the pandemic will continue to play out, the pattern of behavior from various governments can shed light on how general public policy decisions are made. New Zealand has drawn attention as a country with one of the lowest per capita rate of cases in the world. Notably, the country acted quickly and dramatically, enacting a nation wide lockdown when their total number of cases hovered around only 200.9 This move was certainly aided by natural factors, such as a small population and the inherent isolation afforded to the island nation. But supporters have credited the federal government with leading the way. Instead of waiting for public opinion to compel them to take action, the government focused on actively moving public support towards the measures deemed necessary by experts. Compared to other developed nations, such as the United States or Great Britain, where leadership unfortunately squandered time and was forced to rush to make up for it. In America, the early pandemic response was devoted to smaller, more immediate problems such as evacuation for emissaries in China and citizens on foreign cruise ships, and a cohesive national strategy failed to develop until much later.10 The coronavirus pandemic also allows an ultra-rare opportunity to study the climate effects from widespread behavioral change. Since the advent of the green activist movement, consumers have been encouraged to adopt climate-conscious habits: reusable grocery bags, minimizing water waste, fewer car trips, etc. Many activists urge that drastic, systemic shifts in policy are needed to address climate change, and that adjustments in individual behavior is not enough. As billions change their everyday routines in response to the pandemic, we are able to accurately examine the power of individual action. Even assuming robust recovery in the later half of 2020, experts predict a stunning 5%-6% year-over-year drop in global CO2 emissions 11; a notable number as it would make 2020 the first time CO2 emissions declined since the financial recession in 2008. While this drop is impressive in scope, leading experts point out that a consistent, year after year decline in CO2 emissions is needed to hit the 2 degree of warming goal. As Carnegie Mellon University energy expert Costa Samaras puts it, "If this is all we get from shutting the entire world down, it illustrates the scope and scale of the climate challenge, which is fundamentally changing the way we make and use energy and products.” As the globe adjusts to the post-pandemic world, some might expect more from climate policy, having seen firsthand what shifts in behavior can affect. Some side effects of the worldwide coronavirus lockdown include clearer waterways visible from space and more breathable air in the world’s most polluted cities. In India, the Himalayan mountain range was visible from Punjab, after years of it being cloaked by air pollution. Public policy will continue to develop in response to both the pandemic and climate change. But unlike coronavirus, global warming cannot be contained to just one country. Unless public support increases for substantial measures to lower emissions in pollutant-leading, developed countries, or leaders of these countries commit drastic action on their own, the world is unlikely to sufficiently combat the climate crisis.