The implementation of lockdowns worldwide brought a halt to human activity. A group of scientists in the science journal Nature went a little creative and named it anthropause, an amalgam of the Greek word Anthropos (human) and the English word pause, referring to the temporary but significant suspension of our effectuations on planet Earth.
In April 2020, a significant drop of 17% carbon emissions globally was recorded by the Global Carbon Project due to the postponement of flights, the quarantines of workers in factories, and the absence of private vehicles plying the roads. And even locally, people expressed the noticeable difference of air density in Metro Manila in comparison with pre-pandemic days. Scientists have also noted the positive impact of this on wildlife, taking notes of rare species roaming with greater range and whales and dolphins communicating more easily in the absence of seismic noise in the oceans.
The tendency to call the anthropause as an instance of “nature healing itself” was strong, and some heeded. But to say so isn’t only politically incorrect in its insensitivity to the damages done by the world crisis, but also shortsighted and one-sided.
Along with the short but much-praised breath by nature to self-regenerate, is the encroachment of feared elements such as deforestation and poaching of endangered species. In Brazil, the Amazon is once again in danger as conservationists are being pushed aside by the pandemic. Likewise, in Africa, tourism-dependent organizations that protect wildlife are also at risk of being laid off as resources to continue their work are cut. With the removal of human-induced catastrophes to nature, arises, too, the removal of its human-induced preservation.
The 17% drop of world carbon emissions in April 2020 might also be just a short illusion. In June of the same year, it was reduced to just 5%. Some analysts fear that after the lockdowns, countries would sacrifice their natural resources in the name of economic recovery — putting again the environment at the edge of a cliff.
But is the dichotomy between nature and economy a necessary one? Our performance in addressing the current pandemic is considered the best one so far in the history of plagues. People acted, in the words of the German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk, with surpassing “synchronicity.” To him, this further points to the fact that in the present, we are already living in a single global village with a single time dimension. We were able to react at a speed never before seen and a unity encompassing an entire planet to a perceived danger.
The question of our ability to respond to global challenges is clear. If climate change, like the pandemic, is global in scale, then it’s also within our capability to fix. The other thing that we now need is to view it with as much dread and urgency as to how we view the health crisis. Sure, COVID-19 claimed more than 1.7 million lives, but a planetary collapse could claim an extinction.
So, are we willing to sacrifice the much longer but safer road of an environmental recovery after the pandemic for quick economic replenishments? This is not a dead-end question. With what 2020 has shown us, we see that our capability is much wider than we thought. We are far better than our relentless asphalting of the lush green and the polluting of the deep blue. With this historically record-breaking achievement in the 21st century, we should further recognize that our responsibility has also reached a higher level.
