Covid-19 changes everything: the ecosocialist response
Talks2020sAn online Socialist Resistance meeting, chaired by Terry Conway, with Alan Thornett and Pritam Singh. Pritam Singh spoke first after Alan had technical trouble. Alan's talk follows the article “Covid-19 changes everything”, which he posted on the Socialist Resistance website the day before (8 June 2020). Only Alan's contributions are transcribed here, with the chair's questions summarised in square brackets; the whole meeting is in the recording. Recording on the Socialist Resistance YouTube channel; transcript corrected from the automatic captions, 10 Oct 2026. Square brackets also mark words supplied or not clearly heard; figures are as he gave them.
A corrected transcript of the recording. The recording is the authority.
00:00 [Terry Conway introduces the speakers. Pritam Singh, of Wolfson College, Oxford, speaks first, from 1:35 to 17:45. Alan then has trouble with his microphone and camera.]
18:30 Alan Thornett: So anyway, apologies for having technical problems at the start, and again thanks to Pritam for stepping in and
19:00 coming in first. I'm really pleased to be speaking with Pritam, because we've been collaborating on the defence of ecosocialism and promoting ecosocialism for a very long time, probably ten years, something like that. I'm taking a fairly dramatically different angle on this. I mean, there are so many huge angles to
19:30 this crisis as a whole, obviously, and I'm going to focus on the virus itself and the implications of the virus. And I'm going to try to establish that today's model of human society, with its highly destructive relationship with nature and its wholly globalised structure, is incompatible with the
20:00 continuation of human life on the planet, probably beyond this century. That's the theme I'm going to speak to. And I want to start with two crucial points, I think, from an ecosocialist standpoint. The first is that it's necessary, in my view, to recognise
20:30 that the Covid-19 crisis is a part of the total ecological crisis itself. It's not alongside it, it's not coming at the same time: it's directly a part of the ecological crisis, ecology being the relationship between different organisms, and between those organisms and the planet. The
21:00 second point is that, as I've indicated, I think Covid-19 represents a direct threat to the future of life on the planet, and is on a par with other such major threats, such as global warming, pollution and acidification of the oceans, mass extinction of species, the water crisis and everything else. In fact I think it's
21:30 probably possible to argue that this is maybe the most potent crisis of all. And if we had to look forward to what's going to hit us hardest by mid-century, over the rest of this century, it may well be viruses of this kind; in fact, more dangerous viruses even than this one. When I thought about the title of
22:00 this and came up with "Covid-19 changes everything", I also had in mind "Covid-19: a direct threat to life on the planet", and I also thought about "Covid-19: the mother of all wake-up calls". And I noticed that Inger Andersen, the executive director of the UN Environment Programme, said recently of this pandemic that
22:30 it is an SOS signal for the human enterprise. So I think that's the level at which we need to discuss it. Coronaviruses, of course, as is now well known, as has been much debated, cross over from other species, animal species, that exist as reservoirs, as host species, where those species have
23:00 strong enough immune systems to host them over a long period of time. And most opinion is that Covid-19 was a spillover from the wet market in Wuhan, and from fruit bats, and maybe other animals. Now, this is not
23:30 a proven point, I accept that. But what I think is overwhelmingly the case is that these kinds of spillovers come under stress conditions, when humans and other species interact in very stressful circumstances. Then such crossovers can take place, and they are very dangerous: we have no immunity to them initially, and
24:00 they are a completely new situation. The point I want to add to that is that although these kinds of viruses have been around for a very long time, spillover viruses, I think we're in greater danger from such spillover viruses today than at any time in history. And, I don't know if you
24:30 mentioned it in the intro, but I put an article on the SR website yesterday, which is a longer version, basically, of this introduction. I argue this point at some length there: the changes that have taken place to make such spillover viruses more frequent, and probably more
25:00 deadly. I mean, this one is supposed to be a hundred-year event. I don't think anybody would think it's any longer a hundred-year event; it's probably more like a ten-year event. But there are major [causes]. It's created by human impact, and the particular human impact that we need to look towards is
25:30 industrialised agriculture. This is common ground; everybody thinks that. And habitat destruction, deforestation and so on, which I think is common ground. But there is another, more controversial reason for this, which seems to be one that the left [doesn't] want to discuss, which is
26:00 human population density. And whenever you study this, [what's] written about it, human population density is one of the factors. It's not the only factor, but it is one of the factors involved. And social distancing, obviously, is an attempt to combat human population density. So behind the strategies of
26:30 I think all the governments, possibly except the Chinese, I don't know, is that the way to destroy this virus eventually is through a vaccine. And they're all keeping their fingers crossed, and they're pouring money into attempts to find a vaccine, and they're working on the basis that a vaccine will
27:00 be found in about a year, maybe a bit more. I think there's a huge issue in this, and it's something that the World Health Organization says from time to time, and that is that there may not be a vaccine. There may not be a vaccine. I don't know what odds they give it, maybe 50/50, I don't know, but maybe there won't be one. Now, if there's not a
27:30 vaccine, that's really a huge problem. It creates a huge problem, because without a vaccine the only way it can be [dealt with is that] this virus will become endemic, and it'll have to be fought on and on and on, and it will flare up from time to time, and it will be an ongoing struggle against it. But even if a
28:00 vaccine is found, such viruses are prone to mutate. This one apparently already has, to some extent, and the vaccine becomes useless. Alongside that, there is a danger of other such viruses emerging as well, crossover viruses, much more dangerous ones, such as for example Ebola, which has
28:30 a fatality rate of 65 per cent, or the Nipah virus, which also has a similar fatality rate. And what we have to remember is that no vaccine has yet been found for a coronavirus. The common cold is a coronavirus, and they've been looking for a long time and haven't found a vaccine. So
29:00 this is a very, very big threat, and it's been pushed to one side because it's sort of the nightmare scenario. But even then, other viruses, with these crossovers becoming more frequent, and therefore more dangerous, because a lot more of them are brought
29:30 into the human domain: this is an ongoing problem, because they've got to try and find a vaccine for every one that comes forward. And this is a big danger which I think is being avoided. And I think we shouldn't avoid it. We should say that we're in a new stage of the relationship of human beings with the
30:00 rest of the natural world. We've now got this very dangerous process which can happen at any time. So this is not just an economic issue, or that we're going to be in the biggest recession for 300 years and everything else. This is a matter of our relationship with nature, and unless we change it we will be under continuous
30:30 threat. And this is where I have a list of demands at the end of my text, and there could be many more, but they're aimed at altering the relationship between human beings and nature. It has to start with zero carbon by 2030; otherwise the
31:00 climate won't be brought under control. There has to be a comprehensive changeover to renewable energy. There has to be a pulling back on the issue of globalisation; really, we should be saying localisation rather than globalisation. And no return to mass air travel, no return to
31:30 airport expansion: it should now be the reduction of airport capacity, and not the expansion of it. And, as Pritam has said, an end to habitat destruction, and to the ongoing extinction of species, which is now running a thousand times faster than the background rate. An end to industrial
32:00 agriculture, and in particular an end to the meat side of industrial agriculture. Because in the same way that the planet won't tolerate the level of air travel which has now become the norm in recent years, nor can it tolerate the amount of meat which is being eaten by the human population: meat produced
32:30 in the most destructive way, by feeding cattle huge amounts of corn, with the use of fertilisers that then run off the fields into the rivers and into the seas and cause dead zones, and the acidification of the oceans, and so on, and which also uses vast amounts of water, which we don't have. So all these things
33:00 have to be aimed at drastically reducing the impact of human beings on nature. Because if we can't reduce that impact... Some say, you know, nature is striking back. I mean, it doesn't sit down around the table
33:30 and decide to do that. But the way that it's striking back is that we can only put a certain amount of pressure on nature before very nasty things happen which threaten our own existence. So we have to have a completely different relationship with nature. In fact, even the pandemic has started
34:00 to point the way in which we have to go, because emissions have now gone down for the first time in a very long time. The air is getting cleaner, the water is getting cleaner, and the reason it's doing it, I think, is that the things that are normally destroying it are parked at the airport or at the side of the road, and are no longer running in the same numbers. So things can change, once we change our activities
34:30 enough in order to bring that about. It is a big ask to make these kinds of changes, there is no doubt. But if we face a situation where we have no future unless it is done, then a lot of things can be done that haven't been done in the past. We also have, of
35:00 course, at the same time, in terms of the economic situation, to demand massive investment, the abolition of the debt. And we have to demand that where investment goes is green investment: no going back to the old situation. We have to
35:30 build a completely different kind of normal once this situation comes to an end. The old normal is no longer acceptable. And in fact I would say that if we end up coming out of this whole pandemic and we go back to the old ways of relying on carbon energy
36:00 and everything else, and filling the oceans with plastic and everything else, it will be a complete disaster. It will be a huge opportunity missed, to take this as a wake-up call and start changing our ways as a result of it, and make the planet a safer place at the same time.
36:30 [The chair puts the first questions. To Alan: whether debt forgiveness is an essential component that must come before the other demands in his article. To Pritam Singh: the American Dust Bowl of 1935–38. To both: the place of animals, and of the human–animal relationship, in ecosocialism. Pritam Singh answers first, from 39:10.]
44:00 Alan Thornett: Well, debt forgiveness is a fundamental issue. I mean, it wasn't in my [speech], I'll make sure it is. But not before these other issues, not before at all. It has to
44:30 be at the same time, and in the same struggle. We can't sit back and wait until debts have been cancelled before we start doing all these other things. We have to do them whether the debts are cancelled or not. So that would be my attitude to that: we have to do these things straight away. And I would also say, which is in my article, and this
45:00 will be controversial, which is in my article but I didn't include in my speech: when we put these demands for changing our relationship with the natural world and with the planet and everything else, of course the first demands we put are on corporate power, and on governments and institutions, to change the framework of society. But I think there is also a
45:30 personal responsibility involved, to lower our own carbon and ecological footprints. I mean, to me it doesn't make sense to say we demand governments do it, and then we carry on chomping away on hamburgers or something. Our lives have to reflect the demands we put and the struggles that we're carrying out, because we can carry them out much better if our own
46:00 actions reflect that. I'm not arguing everybody should be a vegan, or even a vegetarian, or that nobody should fly. But what I am saying is: think carefully about it, weigh up its implications for the planet, and then start from that point. Not just, it's nothing to do with me, I can carry on flying as much as I like and
46:30 demand no airport expansion and all that kind of thing. There is also a personal responsibility. So there's that. Then on animals: well, I just made a contribution trying to make the point that unless we change our relationship to other species, the consequence of that relationship will kill us, through viruses. So that's one thing about our relationship with animals. And
47:00 also, bearing in mind what I just said, I think we should eat a lot less of them, and we should also treat the ones that we do [keep] as domestic animals with respect, and oppose any cruelty to them. But there are some extremely perverse activities that
47:30 human beings get involved in with animals, and when we talk about crossover viruses that is one of them. I mean bushmeat: bushmeat is a massive global industry that is not only destroying biodiversity, but it's creating conditions for crossovers of viruses, and it's incredibly, incredibly cruel. Not all wet markets are the same; I would definitely say that not all wet markets
48:00 are the same. But there are wet markets that deal in multiple species, in extremely cruel conditions, with them all stacked in crates one on top of the other, and everything else, in very cruel conditions. And some of these are seriously endangered species. The pangolin, I would say: what's happening to that, it will probably
48:30 go extinct before most people have ever seen one. And mostly not because people eat it, but because it has scales which are reputed to be medicinal: no medicinal value whatsoever. Sharks' fins: a hundred million sharks a year are killed for their fins, generally thrown back, and they just sink to the bottom. A hundred million a
49:00 year. I mean, the carnage that human beings inflict on animals is almost beyond belief. So there's a lot to go. Big-game hunting, game hunting, just going out and shooting animals for fun: it's not just in Africa, it's all over Europe, shooting wild animals for fun. It's completely perverse, and we should just stop doing it.
49:30 [The chair announces two coming Socialist Resistance events, then puts the second round of questions: on political strategy and pushing the Green New Deal up the agenda; and, from two questioners, on carbon fee and dividend, and whether regulation would be a better road. Pritam Singh answers first, from 54:00.]
58:00 Alan Thornett: Yes. On the Green New Deal, I think we need a new Green New Deal, in the sense that, as
58:30 the title of this meeting says, Covid-19 changes everything. It's also changed the conditions under which we need a Green New Deal, because a Green New Deal now, I think, needs to come in the framework of coming out of this pandemic with big green changes having taken place, not going back to the old carbon-based norm. So from that point
59:00 of view I think we need, in our different coalitions, and I work in Red Green Labour, to look at the Green New Deal again and tailor it to how this pandemic should end, and what we need to get out of it, and what investment should be made, and everything else, for when we emerge from this pandemic. Because, as I said before, if
59:30 we end up back in the old carbon norm after all this, it will be a tragedy. Now, on fee and dividend: they're two good questions. I'm a backer of fee and dividend; I write about it extensively in my book. The general principle, put forward by James Hansen some time ago, is
60:00 that you have to tax the polluters, and heavily. Fee and dividend is a scheme by which you would put a heavy fee on carbon at the point of production, and give the money, on a highly progressive basis, to the population, directly into their pockets, so that they would have more.
60:30 Then carbon-based things become more expensive, and they spend their money on green things, and so on. On the question, would it be better to go down the regulation road: it's a really big question, a really, really big question, because what it's saying, as I take it, is why don't the government just cut back production
61:00 of fossil fuel, or just put up the price of petrol, for example, just cut it back. It's a big one, because if we're going to make major changes, like changing the way that people lead their lives, and what they buy, and what they consume, what they eat, and everything else, it's not only going to be done with consent, but it's got to be done with massive support. And the thing about fee and dividend is that it
61:30 has the potential to generate mass support, if you put money directly in people's pockets at the expense of the rich. It could generate massive support. So if you're going to reduce the production of carbon dioxide, you have to do it from the demand side: you've got to reduce the demand for it. Because
62:00 if you just cut the production, it'll be like the yellow vests in France. Anything you do in terms of cutting back CO2 emissions has to be done within the framework of a big transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor. The problem in France with the yellow vests was that the green taxes that were put on there
62:30 were part of a regressive overall framework. So I think you have to take people forward, you have to win them to the project. And then, if you make the fee progressive, which is what it proposes, and it keeps going up and going up, it drives CO2 emissions out of the
63:00 system, and at the same time it is popular. So I'm very keen on that. Again, these are all very big issues. They won't be easy to introduce, but they are what is necessary, and I think it's not adequately discussed on the [left].
63:20 [The chair puts three final questions: whether there is a more ecological way to measure the economy than gross domestic product; how local measures such as car-free streets and cycle lanes fit into a plan; and the role of the trade unions, and how to win workers in ecologically damaging jobs. Pritam Singh answers first, from 65:00.]
66:47 Alan Thornett: Well, this is the whole degrowth debate. I'm in favour
67:00 of degrowth. I think economic growth is unsustainable, and it has to come to an end. And one of the debates is around whether we can base it on GDP, because it's a very inaccurate measure of economic activity. I mean, I
67:30 don't agree. It is true that GDP is a rough-and-ready indicator, but it is a real indicator, and when we say we need degrowth, or we need to stop growth, it is legitimate in my view to use GDP as a yardstick for that. The problem is that we have to win this. I think
68:00 most of the left now supports degrowth, or [sees] the problems of growth, but not everybody. It is still a battle to be won, to some extent, on the left. On the trade unions: well, I've been a member, for the last ten or fifteen years, of the Campaign against Climate Change, and its trade
68:30 union wing, which, to its credit, has pushed for a long time on the issue of involving the trade unions in all this. And it has made some important gains over that time, but it remains, unfortunately, an amazing uphill battle, and I don't really know the answer to it. All I know is that ultimately we have to have
69:00 the trade unions involved. There has been some progress made in the unions, which is what [Pritam] just mentioned, which is the demand for a just transition: essentially a just transition from a carbon-based job to a green-based job, where the wage is protected, and the job, their work, is protected. That's
69:30 been widely accepted in the trade union movement, partly because some of the international bodies have supported it. The problem is that only a very few unions are prepared to [act on it]; the PCS has been an example. But most unions, you know, disappear once the sound of
70:00 gunfire [starts] and they've got to do something about it. It has to be a guarantee. It's one of the things that Jeremy Corbyn said early on in his leadership of the Labour Party: that he would guarantee continuity of employment and similar wages to all workers transitioning from carbon-based jobs to green jobs, which was [barely] noticed at the time, but it was an incredibly
70:30 important [commitment]. And the PCS have done a good job, because they've organised not only in the nuclear industry but in the nuclear weapons industry, where they've said, we don't agree with this industry, but we will defend your jobs if there's a chance for a change, an opportunity, to green production.
71:00 [The chair closes the meeting.]