There are multiple, direct and indirect, relationships between the Covid-19 pandemic and the environment. The lockdown had a profound impact on economic activity and, as a consequence, on the environment. This reminds us of the environmental externalities which follow from production and spending decisions. Noise levels declined[1] and air quality improved[2]. The relationship can go in the other direction as well with exposure to air pollution possibly influencing the spread of the contagion and its fatality rate[3]. With the significant easing of lockdown measures in a large number of countries, the focus is now shifting. The question is whether and, if so, how the experience of the pandemic will influence the environment in the years to come. This is a matter of attitude, behaviour and policy. On attitude, Covid-19 may make people health-focused, including how the environment influences it. This may change behaviour in terms of mobility –travel, distance to work, means of transport- and spending, e.g. buying vegetables from local farmers. On the other hand, in the absence of a vaccine, there is concern that the environmental footprint could actually increase, should people shift to buying more plastic-wrapped fruit and vegetables. There may also be an influence on how people invest their savings with an increased allocation to sustainable investments. This in turn would influence company behaviour. A recent study covering 6000 listed companies in 56 countries has shown that in the first quarter this year, when the pandemic was spreading, the share price of companies with a high score in terms of corporate and social responsibility (CSR) declined significantly less than the low-CSR score firm.[4]
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND THE ENVIRONMENTAnother area where company decisions following Covid-19 could have an environmental impact is the reorganisation of global value chains. Following the supply disruption experienced in many sectors, companies may decide to increase the geographical diversification of their suppliers, which could have an impact on transport-related carbon emissions.
If what matters to people changes following the pandemic, this may influence the political debate and how people (are expected to) vote. It may also cause a shift in policy priorities. This is clearly the message from the European Commission which in its EUR 750 billion Next Generation EU proposal emphasises the need “to protect livelihoods, get the economy back on its feet and foster sustainable and resilient growth”[5]. It is a matter of trying to kill two birds with one stone: meeting the short-term goal of boosting the post-pandemic recovery by making investments that contribute to reaching the goals related to climate change. Recent research suggests that this should be possible. “There are a set of fiscal recovery policy types which offer high economic multipliers and positive climate impact”: investment in clean energy infrastructure, efficient use of energy, education and training, investments for ecosystem resilience, clean R&D spending.[6]
