The moderate reset: realistic hopes for a green recovery

In Dutch, we talk of “spots” on the horizon; in English, you talk of “clouds” being there. Both idioms point to problems that can be seen in the distance, and contrast neatly with the idea of the “light at the end of the tunnel” that so many of us are focused on right now as we await a return to normal life, when visits to pubs, terraces, championships, festivals and museums can resume. But is it possible that our journey through the COVID-19 tunnel might bring us out somewhere with clearer skies ahead?

The relevance of these metaphors occurred to me when I read the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) ‘Global Risks Report 2021’ on the alarming range of clouds that are in view for those who care to look. Based on consultations with more than 800 experts and organisations, the WEF report provides an overview of the economic, social, environmental, geopolitical and technological risks the world faces and considers both their likelihood and impact. After a year of COVID-19, it will be no surprise that infectious diseases top the list. However, the WEF considers that extreme weather conditions, severe climate changes and man-made environmental damage pose almost as great a threat. Add to this the risk of a shortage of natural resources and declining biodiversity, and it becomes clear that as we exit the COVID-19 tunnel, many of the clouds on the horizon will be environmental ones.

Perhaps, then, this is the right time to consider whether instead of ‘returning to normal’ we should be preparing for a bold change of course, if that is achievable. To me, it seems likely that the craving for pre-pandemic normality, at least in rich countries, will in some ways be too great to resist. The ground has not been laid for a comprehensive green reboot, as advocated in COVID-19: The Great Reset, the sensational book by WEF founder Klaus Schwab and global strategist Thierry Malleret. That being said, our desire for normality is counterbalanced to some degree by a demand for change. If both of these forces can be harnessed, there is an opportunity for our emergence from COVID-19 to lead towards a cautious transition to a different economic order.

The experience gained in the development of approaches to transitioning towards a more circular economy can serve as a useful starting point. Here, the ‘reset’ concept laid out by Gartner, a business research institute, can be of great help. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Gartner describes an overlapping, three-phase response to the pandemic: ‘respond, recover, renew’. These three phases have a similar starting point, but differ in duration, scope and focus. The ‘respond’ phase is characterised by a short, sharp period of a high number of actions to protect populations and limit the spread of the pandemic, while the activities involved in the ‘restore’ and ‘renew’ phases are fewer in number but extend over a longer period of time.

First responders

The ‘respond’ stage encompasses rapid actions implemented to ensure safety and maintain services essential to the functioning of society. During the COVID-19 pandemic, most countries implemented social distancing, hygiene measures such as the wearing of face masks, and partial or total lockdown through the closure of schools, universities, pubs, non-essential shops and public activities. In many countries, curfews have been introduced, encountering varying degrees of resistance. Severe travel restrictions have been imposed on domestic and foreign travel , with workers encouraged to work from home. Meanwhile, large-scale testing programs have been launched and vaccination campaigns prepared and rolled out.

Positive developments have emerged out of a pandemic response, otherwise characterised by lockdown and restrictions, that will continue to be useful in the ‘recover’ and ‘renew’ phases. A broad range of activities shifted online, allowing the continued provision of public services – educational institutions, for example, were quick to make use of the internet to continue to provide schooling for students. Working from home and travel restrictions have led to a reduction in road usage and air travel. A positive consequence of this – and of reduced industrial production – has been a reduction in CO₂ emissions – a 6.4% reduction globally in 2020 – and of other harmful emissions, such as fine dust and particulate matter.

Within the ‘respond’ phase, two main questions remain: which positive effects will be retained or reinforced in the recovery phase; and what potential negative consequences might the actions implemented in the ‘respond’ phase, such as lockdowns, prove to have? In order to address and mitigate against the social risks outlined in the Global Risk Report, such as security collapses and the erosion of social cohesion, an inclusive assessment of the impact of all pandemic measures, even the otherwise successful vaccination campaigns, is required.

Recovery position

‘Recover’ implies the restoration of and the return to normal activities. It is necessary to identify which changes introduced during the ‘response’ phase can be fully or partially integrated into normality. For example, a greater proportion of employees has worked from home in the last year. If this continues, even part of the time, it implies a reduced need for office space, and perhaps a change in the use and layout of what remains. Fewer office buildings may be required, and companies may shy away from large, open-plan offices with many work stations, in favour of smaller, individual workplaces, supported by shared meeting and conference rooms. It seems likely that this trend will continue through ‘recovery’ and into the ‘renewal’ phase.

Structural changes have also taken place in the logistics sector, such as more efficient organisation of transport facilities. These improvements will remain and increase in the third phase of the Gartner model. I foresee an expansion of electric delivery systems in inner cities, more transport with drones, and the organisation of reverse logistics as part of circular supply chains. This gives the ‘recovery’ phase a two-way effect: recovery of acceptable activities and development and promotion of new systems and procedures that reduce emissions and combat climate change.

Renewed efforts

The ‘renew’ phase opens the way to strategic and structural renewal of society and increases the chances of a sustainable future. The 1987 Brundtland report, otherwise known as ‘Our Common Future’, defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”, both at home and in other parts of the world. Over the years, the original Brundtland concept has become somewhat eroded, and despite increasing attention on increased sustainability, the goal of genuine sustainable development remains remote; similarly, as the idea of a circular economy has become more popular, it seems to have accommodated greater acceptance that material will be lost in each cycle.

The Ellen McArthur Foundation definition of circularity is that it is:

“restorative by design, aiming to keep products, components and materials at their highest utility and value, at all times”

This concept must be the basis for the ‘renew’ phase of the transition. When we think about circular innovations that can enhance utility and value, that must take account of time, place and function. The negative impacts of climate change will be felt differently in different places and by different socio-economic strata, in ways that will have geopolitical implications.

Typical renewal aims

A functional perspective should be taken to both the positive and negative effects of transition, to promote solidarity and stability. Of course, developments with positive effects must be nurtured, and negative trends combated. To illustrate the challenge the world faces in bringing forth positive developments out of the COVID-19 pandemic, I outline six characteristic areas in which, during the next few decades, important social, economic and environmental changes may be achieved:

• Greater development of renewables, especially solar and wind energy, with implementation of hydrogen production and building up physical storage systems;
• Replacement of primary fossil energy carriers by secondary energy carriers, such as electricity and hydrogen, in transport. This will need innovation regarding the lifecycle, weight and recycling of batteries;
• Changing the complete plastic portfolio within every chain of the product cycle, by using appropriate ecodesign, fewer composites, easily reusable and recyclable polymers, and, if necessary, new chemical recycling procedures;
• Emphasis on reuse and recycling of secondary material streams with high energy content, such as concrete, aluminium, glass, steel and plastics;
• Special attention to design, composition and reuse and recycling of textiles, with a focus on the recovery of fibres from used textile products; and
• More sustainable food production and consumption, including reduced consumption of animal products and greater recovery of phosphates and nitrates in agriculture.

A careful reset of socio-economic and environmental policy has emerged as a favoured approach to making post-pandemic society safer and more sustainable, both in high- and low-income countries. A circular economy, which is intimately linked to an effective climate policy, should be adopted as a way to clear the clouds on the horizon, including the loss of biodiversity and the shortage of natural resources, and reset society onto a more sustainable track.

Featured Image: WhatiMom (CC-BY-SA 2.0) via Flickr