Searching for smart, safe news you can TRUST?

Support safe, smart, REAL journalism. Sign up for our Axios AM & PM newsletters and get smarter, faster.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Searching for smart, safe news you can TRUST?

Support safe, smart, REAL journalism. Sign up for our Axios AM & PM newsletters and get smarter, faster.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Denver news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Denver

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Des Moines news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Des Moines

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Minneapolis-St. Paul news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Minneapolis-St. Paul

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Tampa-St. Petersburg news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Tampa-St. Petersburg

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Illustration: Eniola Odetunde/Axios

Climate change and the coronavirus have a lot more in common than the letter C, but their differences explain society’s divergent responses to each.

Why it matters: The Internet is full of comparisons, some from biased perspectives. I'm going to try to cut through the noise to help discerning readers looking for objective information.

Here are some of the more common comparisons made on climate change and the coronavirus over the last few months and corresponding reality checks.

Comparison: Pandemics and climate change are both massive risks that much of the world is ignoring or downplaying.

Reality check: True.

They’re both gray rhino risks. As I wrote in this column early in the pandemic, a gray rhino is a metaphor coined by risk expert Michele Wucker to describe “highly obvious, highly probable, but still neglected” dangers, as opposed to unforeseeable or highly improbable risks — the kind in the black swan metaphor.

Comparison: They’re both existential crises of our time.

Reality check: Partially true.

The pandemic will define our generation uniquely, while climate change will wear on for many.

  • The word "crisis" implies a finite beginning and end, which certainly fits the bill of the pandemic. At some point, just like past pandemics, this coronavirus will likely recede, become normalized or be resolved with a vaccine.
  • I don’t use the word crisis to describe climate change because humanity is going to be living with impacts of a warming world indefinitely even if we do drastically reduce heat-trapping emissions. It doesn’t have finite parameters that typically define crises.

Comparison: The coronavirus is climate change on warp speed.

Reality check: False.

This characterization, made by environmentalists and other experts, fails to appreciate the inherent differences in these types of risks.

  • It’s like saying a cheetah is a turtle, only faster. Yes, they’re both animals, but otherwise they have inherent differences that means the turtle will never be faster than the cheetah.
  • Climate change is, by definition, a slow-moving, centuries-long problem whose impact on the world is uneven and secondary. A pandemic is fast-moving and relatively equal in how it affects different parts of the world.

Comparison: They both threaten our public health.

Reality check: True.

But the coronavirus could kill someone within two weeks, while climate change does it more slowly and in a more indirect fashion.

  • Climate change is like diabetes for the planet: It makes existing weather events and patterns worse. Its exacerbating impact can increase the likelihood over many decades that crises like heat waves and other extreme weather events could kill people.
  • Again, it comes down to the time difference, which explains society’s immediate response to the coronavirus and its slow and uneven response to climate change.

Comparison: Scientists have been sounding the alarm for years — even decades — that a pandemic like the coronavirus could devastate humanity, and also that unabated climate change would wreak havoc on the planet.

Reality check: True.

Putting politics aside (an impossible task), our experience with the pandemic should instill more faith in scientists. Yet our hyper-polarized world has fixed a blue and red lens onto the pandemic, just like it has with climate change, Axios-Ipsos Coronavirus Index and Pew Research Polling data shows.

Comparison: The fact that the predictions from scientific modeling about the coronavirus didn't bear out weeks later shows why climate change models predicting vast ecological harm over decades should not be trusted.

Reality check: False.

This argument, perpetuated by those who question the scientific consensus of climate change, are either purposefully or ignorantly misunderstanding how modeling works.

  • Modeling exists to show what happens if you don’t change behavior. At least with the coronavirus, we are able to view change — flattening of the curve — in a rapid timeline.
  • With climate change, the change happens over generations, making it far more difficult to see and react to in real time.

Whether the subject is climate change, pandemics or anything else, modelers aren't trying to predict exactly what will happen, but instead possibilities of what could happen as inconvenient as that may be for our polarizing debates.

The bottom line: Coronavirus and climate change are both complex, terrible risks the world is facing today. Making them out to be more or less than what they are does a disservice to anyone looking for solutions.

Go deeper

Ben Geman, author of Generate
Sep 2, 2020 - Energy & Environment

The renewable threat to biodiversity

Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios

Expanded mining for materials used in renewable power technologies and electric cars could harm vulnerable species and ecosystems absent better planning, according to a peer-reviewed paper in Nature Communications.

Why it matters: The tech needed to fight one threat to biodiversity — climate change — can create other big risks unless policymakers act "urgently" on the matter, the researchers found.

Amy Harder, author of Generate
Sep 3, 2020 - Energy & Environment

Natural gas remains the big question in Biden’s climate change plan

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

Joe Biden has the most aggressive climate-change plan in presidential-election history, but he continues to evade the dicey topic of natural gas.

Why it matters: Natural gas, mostly derived from the controversial extraction process called fracking, is filling an increasingly large role in America’s energy system. It’s cleaner than oil and coal, but is still a fossil fuel with heat-trapping emissions.

1 hour ago - Health

Boris Johnson announces month-long COVID-19 lockdown in U.K.

Prime Minsiter Boris Johnson. Photo: NurPhoto / Getty Images

A new national lockdown will be imposed in the U.K., Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced Saturday, as the number of COVID-19 cases in the country topped 1 million.

Details: Starting Thursday, people in England must stay at home, and bars and restaurants will close, except for takeout and deliveries. All non-essential retail will also be shuttered. Different households will be banned from mixing indoors. International travel, unless for business purposes, will be banned. The new measures will last through at least December 2.