Part 1:
We talk with Henry Grabar, writer for Slate.com. We discuss the changes that are being made in everyone’s lives due to COVID-19. There are positive effects, such as the reduction of pollution, since people are traveling less and thus reducing the emissions from vehicles.
Other effects are somewhat ambiguous, such as how workers will behave with respect to their choices of employers, their interactions with coworkers, and their own attitudes and mental health. It could be that workers will be more likely to choose to align themselves with larger companies, since these will likely have more resources to support telework, and may be perceived as being able to resist events like COVID-19.
We also expect that this pandemic will cause people to reexamine the disadvantages – as well as the advantages – of globalization. For example, American companies have relied, to a large extent, on international supply chains for producing their goods and services. COVID-19 has disrupted these supply chains, revealing the weakness of choosing to outsource/offshore so many products that Americans depend on for health and safety.
Small businesses, too, may have difficulty surviving this downturn, and disappear. We may see that smaller face-to-face businesses may wither away as a result. Will communities follow? Another aspect is the current state of the US health care system, which appears unable to cope very well, even for those who are insured. The uninsured, including undocumented workers, will be left out. Americans may have to reconsider excluding such workers from public benefits like health insurance: if they get sick, it will increase the risk of infection for all Americans . Such reconsiderations may have an effect on immigration policy and other US policies.
Part 2:
We speak with Rebecca Lieber, an environmental reporter for Mother Jones. We discuss some less-noticed changes that the Trump administration is making to government agencies and policies, particularly now, when everyone else is focused on the pandemic. Rules enforced by the EPA are being rescinded or ignored. Many of these rule changes will cause harm for future generations; it will be difficult for any new administration to reinstate them, and even if they succeed, their efforts will use up considerable time and lawmakers’ resources. Trump is dismantling the government health and safety infrastructure, with a goal of completing this by May 2020.
One aspect of this has implications well beyond the environment. The various rules are based on science. The Trump administration is proposing to eliminate policy-makers’ ability to take scientific evidence into account, forcing them to rely solely on political and non-scientific principles. One example is the continuation of fossil fuel production. Now, instead of just producing fuel and energy, the industry is focusing on producing various plastics. These materials will never degrade; they will clog the earth for centuries. We are now at a fork in the road: should we humans change our path, and stop producing ‘forever’ contaminants, or should we reduce consumption and try to save the planet?
