Goodbye Homo Economicus
Miriam Meissner, March 2020
Virus pandemic, global warming, species extinction. We find ourselves in the midst of multiple global crises. All of them cost lives. All of them demand swift responses. What follows is an attempt to learn from comparing them. But let’s get one thing straight from the start: the victims of these crises defy any comparison.
* This article was originally published in German in the newspaper Der Freitag
1. If we want to, we can.
Companies are switching to remote work. Automakers are halting production. Factories are closing. Air travel is being restricted. Countries are declaring states of emergency. Even Trump has declared a state of emergency. The whole world has slammed on the emergency brakes. It seems as though much of what climate activists, environmental organizations, and sustainability researchers have been fighting for for decades is suddenly becoming possible within days, if not hours. If we want to, we can take action—and do so radically—to flatten the coronavirus curve. Our global CO₂ emissions curve, however, remains anything but flat. Since the 1990s, CO₂ emissions have risen by about 60%. Despite the Paris Climate Agreement, this trend continues. In contrast, our collective response to the coronavirus is far more decisive. This raises the question: Do we really want to tackle climate change, or have we just been paying lip service to it so far?
2. We are not yet taking the climate crisis seriously enough.
Millions of people and animals are already dying from extreme weather events, wildfires, droughts, crop failures, and other consequences of climate change, environmental pollution, and resource depletion. The WHO estimates that air pollution alone claims 7 million lives each year. Since humans have inhabited the Earth, never before have so many animal and plant species gone extinct—forever—as they are now. Proposals to enact stricter regulations as a countermeasure are usually dismissed as unreasonable infringements on individual freedom and the free market. Measures against COVID-19, on the other hand, are readily approved, even when they involve restrictions on freedom. It almost seems as if nations are currently competing to see who can lead the strictest, seemingly most consistent crisis management teams. This works because the coronavirus is taken seriously as a crisis. Environmental problems, on the other hand, are often labeled as crises but not treated as such—even though scientists classify climate change as far more dangerous in the long term than the coronavirus.
3. Postgrowth is the most effective climate policy.
The coronavirus is temporarily achieving what decades of climate negotiations have failed to deliver. CO2 emissions in China have fallen by a quarter. Why? Because industry is shutting down. Because people are staying home instead of traveling or consuming. In fact, we’ve known for a long time that “green growth”—which supposedly decouples economic growth from its negative environmental impacts—doesn’t work. The European Environmental Bureau, the European Environment Agency, and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) all agree on this. Unfortunately, this crucial insight has not yet made its way into politics or public debate. The mantra remains: Full steam ahead with growth! Business associations are already lining up to demand COVID-19 subsidies to ensure a recession doesn’t occur. In the context of the climate crisis, however, fueling growth is like throwing wild COVID-19 parties while simultaneously giving guests vitamin pills. The latter might slow the spread of the virus, but overall, the strategy leads to disaster.
4. Global risks require collective responses.
The coronavirus pandemic shows that individual measures can do little to counter global environmental and health risks. While it certainly helps when individuals wash their hands, that alone cannot avert a pandemic—not if everyone still has to go to school or work. Global risks require collective, coordinated action. To set this in motion, our shared institutions—organizations, businesses, and, of course, the government—must take the lead to ensure that everyone does their part. This applies to the coronavirus as well as to climate change. What good is it if those who can afford it drive electric cars while others remain dependent on their gas-powered vehicles? What good is it if those with green convictions live sustainably, while others rapidly burn through our remaining collective CO2 budget? Unfortunately, we are not accustomed to aligning our actions with the common good. Our economic system demands that we see ourselves as competitors or consumers—as homo economicus. What the pandemic is now illustrating to us is that, in times of crisis, individuals who maximize their own utility benefit, at best, the toilet paper industry.
5. Our vulnerability is growing and is unevenly distributed. A universal basic income (UBI) would help address this.
Since the pandemic, we have become more aware of how vulnerable we are, even in our wealthy and privileged corner of the world. Extreme events like the pandemic are becoming more frequent as a result of global warming. This poses risks to health, food security, weather, and much more. Christiana Figueres, former Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), warns, for example, that we must expect more frequent disease outbreaks. This is especially true if we continue to push climate targets further into the future. We are also learning that extreme events do not affect everyone equally. COVID-19 affects older people more severely than younger ones. Quarantine measures affect small businesses and the self-employed differently than they do large corporations and salaried employees. Losses of income affect homeowners differently than they do renters. An unconditional basic income (UBI) could alleviate these latter problems. Furthermore, it helps us move beyond green growth myths and finally set in motion an effective, postgrowth-oriented climate policy. In times of global risks, we need policies that effectively avert what is avoidable and distribute what is unavoidable fairly.
