In recent years, dystopian fantasies have fed largely on climate change. Now it's a virus that's not only setting the direction of our fears of catastrophe, but has actually plunged the world into a state of emergency that would have been unimaginable just a few months ago.

Weeks-long lockdowns, closed schools, and an economy scaled back to the bare essentials have so far been broadly accepted by the public, in order to reduce the risk of infection and ensure the survival of as many Covid-19 patients as possible.

By comparison, the measures taken in the past to mitigate the effects of climate change have been modest. And this despite the fact that unchecked global warming will cause far more premature deaths and incomparably higher costs, as studies project.

Unequal treatment

Why are these two threats perceived and treated so differently by governments and individuals? Philosopher and climate ethicist Lukas Meyer, who teaches at the University of Graz, has teamed up with his Brazilian colleague Marcelo de Araujo, Professor of Ethics and Legal Philosophy at two universities in Rio de Janeiro, to investigate the causes.

Read the full article at derstandard.at