Deplorable as this was, climate change topics still made some headlines. A few days into the crisis, footage appeared on social media that showed mud-free canals in Venice, raising hopes that the lockdown, which was in place in most of Europe, Asia and the United States at the time, would at least help reduce pollution.
Likewise, photos from car-free public spaces, empty highways, grounded airplanes and seemingly deserted cities, as well as the steep decline of oil prices, suggested that nature would benefit from the pandemic.
While the coronavirus crisis may keep a lid on the global economy for years to come, the temporary shutdown of businesses across the globe in fact helped curb carbon emissions by some 8 percent, according to a study published in Nature Climate Change. And the International Energy Agency likewise expects greenhouse-gas emissions to drop substantially in 2020 compared with 2019 levels.
Economic and health consequences
Yet, many fear that, despite this temporary decline – in the United States renewables took over coal as a key energy provider during the crisis – pollution and greenhouse gas emissions will quickly rise again if businesses fail to take appropriate actions.
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, for example, highlighted the danger of underestimating the risk of climate change and likened it to the erratic response to COVID-19.
“In December, many people just dismissed the first reports of the coronavirus from Wuhan because it was happening far away,” said the institute’s chief economist Beata Javorcik. “But, before we knew it, it became our problem. Many people don’t see [climate change] happening, but that doesn’t mean it’s not happening,” Javorcik said.
While the economic costs of climate change will go into the trillions of US dollars, the human toll will be no less catastrophic. According to the World Health Organization, climate change could kill around 250 000 people ever year due to malnutrition, malaria, diarrhea and heat stress.
“The long-term impact of climate change on population health is anticipated to be determined by an interplay of factors,” says Jonathan Spector, Head of Global Health at the Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research. “Some factors will result directly from temperature increases, such as changes in the breeding habitats of mosquito vectors that contribute to various infectious diseases. Other factors will be indirectly caused by climate change. Increased exposure to environmental pollutants, for example, could exacerbate chronic pulmonary diseases and also potentially lead to more cancers.”
Novartis has not only upped its efforts to develop new antimalarial treatments in the past few years. The Novartis Institute for Tropical Diseases, headquartered in Emeryville near San Francisco, is also working on a potential treatment for Dengue, another infectious disease that may be influenced by global temperature fluctuations. On top of that, the company has a large arsenal of therapies directed to chronic disease management, which are globally on the rise due in part to societal ageing and climate change.