This work aimed at showing: 1) The detrimental effects of the climate collapse-CC. 2) The adjustments required to sustain development and 3) the impacts (positive-negative) of COVID-19 on: global economy, Greek one, Greek society and Shipping industry. We formed a microeconomic model focusing exclusively on production function with… environment as a factor. Moreover, we analyzed the profile of what we named “digital-citizen”…

The paper is organized in 5 parts, after literature review. Part I, deals with the question: “what humanity has to sustain”? Part II, deals with COVID-19’s indirect (positive) impacts on global economy/Greece. Part III, deals with COVID-19’s indirect (negative) impacts on global economy/Greece. Part IV, deals with the climatic collapse in Globe, in EU and the relevant policies, and in Greece. Part V, deals with the… “digital citizen”. Finally, we conclude.

Economists were aware of “sustainability”, (defined below), since Malthus R. (in 1798), as he first worried about Britain’s ability to feed an ever-increasing population with given land (Goulielmos, 2020). In 1865, Jevons W S (1835-1882) also questioned: “how Britain can sustain an increased energy consumption with a given supply of coal?”

Modern economists ignored sustainability. This is justified, as Economics, (1776), became a science by solving only 2 problems: “how unlimited needs can best be satisfied by limited means”; and “how limited resources can be best allocated among unlimited uses”. In brief “what is” and not “what should be13”…! We believe that the 2 above mentioned economics—positive and normative—had to be one!

Moreover, economists believed in “diminishing returns to scale” (Agriculture), a theory due to Adam Smith! This “law” unfortunately over-shadowed the other two: “constant & increasing returns to scale” (Arthur, 1994), especially the last one. Economists believed that if resources are scarce, then their products will also be scarce (Pearce, 1992). Later (in 1940s) economists attempted to show how to grow GDP. Economic growth theories were strongly challenged by environmentalists (in 1972) warning that growth is limited!

Humans follow patterns, as Keyes wrote in 1936: when income increases, less is spent, proportionally, and more is saved (Goulielmos, 2018). Also, when income drops (or disappears) less is spent and saved. But less is also invested14, as the liberated factors of production from consumption, are fewer than those required to achieve a higher GDPt + 1. This is the capitalistic problem, marked out by Keynes, i.e. the deficiency of effective (money) demand. Hoarding brings death to Capitalism15!

Meadows et al. (1972) argued that the growth16 (of global economy) is limited (TLTG)…! They used a “computer simulation model” of world economy related to natural environment, assuming limits in: agricultural land and production (per land unit); the amount of extractable (non-renewable) resources, and the ability of environment to assimilate waste17. They concluded: world economy will reach its growth limit by 2072, but it was not a forecasting model!

Meadows et al., 20 years latter (1992), confirmed that global economy was beyond its growth limits (BTL)! This caused less controversy, as was considered a case of learning something from it, especially economists… Their 1972 limits to growth remained valid, requiring additional strength. Important is, however, that pollution came-out as a main concern…for the 1st time.

Common M (1995) pointed-out that 2 of the greatest problems, which humanity faced were poverty, and the threats against natural environment. Important is that Common held responsible… economic activity! Unfortunately, the threats at the time of Common, proved to be attacks now (2020). The “Brundtland report” of WCED18 (1987) alarmed politicians, for the 1st time, defining: “sustainable development”-SD (analyzed below).

IMO preoccupied19 to reduce pollution to air from ships’ emissions (Goulielmos-Giziakis-Christodoulou, 2014b, July). Shipping also had to establish a global levy scheme, as a solution (Goulielmos-Giziakis-Christodoulou, 2014a, Feb.). Shipping discusses about a mechanical method to retain sulfur from maritime fuel (the scrubber20). Christodoulou (2018) focused on the potential use of 2 new environmental indices: CSI (Clean Shipping Index) and ESI (Environmental Ship Index) for the improvement of the performance of Maritime Transport. IMO (http://www.imo.org) adopted a GHG strategy in 2018, which set ambitious indeed targets such as to halve GHG emissions from ships by 2050/since 2008 and carbon intensity by 40% by 2030/since 2008…

Xiao et al. (2020) argued that the effort of carbon reduction is decreasing along the intensity of “fairness²¹ concern”-FC. Moreover, the optimal retail price, under a “revenue-sharing contract”-RSC, first decreases and then rises depending on FC intensity-FCI. On this last depends also the profit of a supply chain. If FCI is low, the RSC provides increased profit. If FCI is high, a centralized contract is more profitable. Finally, given the retailer’s FC and the manufacturer’s overconfidence²² attitude, the RSC provides increased profit for the first, given that FCI is high. Authors applied a mathematical and diagrammatic analysis to indicate the optimal contract selection problem given FC and manufacturer’s overconfidence. FC acts negatively on carbon emissions, and the optimal carbon emission effort is high under a BC contract. The RSC is the optimal choice for a fairness-neutral manufacturer etc.

Summarizing, TLTG assumed that a global disaster will come from a global “lack of resources”23, following the classics. BTL assumed that the disaster will come rather from pollution. TLTG took into account “family planning”, but it could not take into account China’s allowance for a 2nd child (2015).

Our opinion is to establish everywhere “sustainable cities”-SC. A SC is one having as an undiscussable pre-condition for those living and working in there, the elimination of the above mentioned 2—at least24—enemies. This city, smart or not, will be at least humane… A SC has to establish, we believe, a center(s) to issue sustainability certificates for existing/new products, services25, and even planned actions, in an obligatory way, following the steps of a “patent-approval office”. An action is sustainable-SA, if its management, avoids the loss of life, human injury and damaging environment!

SD required all economies to “satisfy, not only the needs, but also the… aspirations of existing generation, without compromising the needs and aspirations of future generations” (WCED: “Brundtland Report”, 1987; rephrased). SD, we believe, is an effort of a generational justice, establishing rights on existing “development means-DM”: i.e. a moral claim on them, for the sake of next generations. SD holds responsible those living today (which is unfair)! DMs are means of production left over from previous generations. SD’s novel element is to care, in a specific way, for all humans coming after present generation. SD theory established a “generation-depositary”, acting on behalf of next generations, we reckon!

It is fair, we believe, the present generation to care about only the next one, and the next one for the next one, and so on. When economists talk about DM, they mean products of manufacturing and craft industry. We understand that DM26 delivered to present generation by the previous one, must be used with precaution, and wisdom, and in a such manner so that to be delivered intact, or even in a higher quantity, to next generation… This is apparently in the area of utopia, if humans are greedy and selfish! Epicureans (c. 300 BC) said: “Let us eat and drink… tomorrow we die”! A number of persons believe this even today. SD presupposes that DM are exhaustible, depending on use… SD thus is a warning. From the discussion so far, we understand that the bases of SD are sentimental, moral and depend on the love one feels for one’s children.

Environmentalists observed that when a resource is used repeatedly in a high degree (over-exploited), and a product is over-produced, they reach extinction. Certain fish-types are best examples. However, 4 so far industrial revolutions did not prove that the depletion is true, though we saw some kinds of fish27, animals, birds, plants etc. to disappear, or to become rare (in the state of extinction, as we say). Also, we saw beaches to lose their original color, after the invasions of millions of tourists (massive tourism). We saw also animals to die from lack of water etc. and people to immigrate. Managing environment is obviously required!

There is a less accurate knowledge—as always used to be, but improving—about the real existing quantity of DMs, like: oil, gas, other minerals, etc., below earth’s surface28, under sea’s bottom29, and … even on near-by planets30! Moreover, a new science developed, since 1982, following “Law of Sea” (UNCLOS II): “Marine Economics” dealing with… sea economy31. Worth noting is that sea economies cover 2/3 of the Globe! Thus, the depletion-danger went further away, since 1982, but pollution arrived stronger, and it meant to stay…!

Normative economics had to care about people, if their income is zero, we believe. Surplus products, excess food, products and medicines near expiry, defective items, excess clothing etc., why not be given free to persons in-need in the “(open) markets”? After writing the above, we read (01/11/2020) that a Greek “bank” established in 2015 under the name of “humanitarian bank”, and did exactly the above, by providing shelter to 270 citizens and food to 1m, among other things.

Science invents new materials32, fuels, and technologies, and has speeded-up production… People increased its dependence33: on alcohol, smoking, drugs, etc. More products (paints, products, etc.) are produced ecologically, but their prices are high to be able to replace the non-ecological ones. Emphasis here is required to be put by all societies.

Summarizing, societies, we believe, need to establish from now on, a number of “sustainable cities”, focusing exclusively on “sustainable citizen”. We do not foresee a possible lack of DM. The obvious enemy, which economies have to win, is CC. CC is the “situation where climate kills its citizens, from time to time, due to weather’s revenge”.

Threats to people we had from climate, appearing mainly in the form of faster coming tropical cyclones (hurricanes; storms etc.) (Graph 1) and of fires and floods all over the world, and par excellence in USA.

As shown, tropical cyclones are of 8 types (at least). “Cyclone” means the weather phenomenon where the winds blow in a κύκλος (cycle), where cyclone runs round a hole: the “eye”. People in USA experienced hurricane Catrina⁴⁶ in 2005! Almost ½ a million deaths caused by the 24 major “climatic attacks” from 1780 to 2020 (Appendix 1). Notable is that till 1932, there were only 21 cyclones, but many more thereafter! Moreover, billions of dollars cost thousands of collapsed houses and damaged private cars, apart from the destruction of infrastructure! We counted almost $500 billion damages due only to 10 Atlantic Ocean hurricanes (source: internet).

Greece resembles more… Egypt than its past self, obtaining deserts, lacking water at times, and planting rows of tropical trees. Date-palms e.g. are more suitable since some time in Greece, and planted in Athens since 2004, (on the occasion of Olympic Games), replacing poplar- and plane-trees.

Graph 1. Kinds of tropical cyclones. Source: author and Internet.

Greece, in Sept. 2020, hit, for the 1^st time, by the cyclone “Janus”, with 4 - 5 dead. This caused rivers to jump over their bounds, forced by more than regular rain-water and violent winds. Janus brought over tons of mud, and hundreds of stones, burying entire cars… Fast winds dislocated and carried-away all removable objects, panels, cut-down electric poles etc., got-out trees, took-away fences, destroyed cultivations, eliminated animals, etc., smashed-down bridges, shallowed roads, and took - roofs - away.

“Stealing” from rivers part of their land, so that to build houses there, a time comes for rivers, using their increased, by heavy rain, waters, to claim their land back, not at all gently! Greek residents in the cities and villages deprived for days of electric power, water and cell phones, or phones, at the time they were most needed! Electricity poles, due to thunderbolts, burnt-out, or dropped-down by trees falling on them…

Over 200 years of tropical cyclones brought-in 1.9 million dead⁴⁷ … In addition, tropical cyclones in sea created large waves, heavy rains, floods and high winds, disrupting international sea transport and occasionally creating shipwrecks.

As shown in appendix 1, 24 + 3 main hurricanes and storms are recorded since 1780. Deaths due to them exceeded 453,000. Their damages cost $345 billion… Since 1995 the annual number of cyclones in Atlantic Ocean is estimated as 87 ± 10 (internet sources). But the intensity, speed and duration of hurricanes increased since 1995 (US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration’s national hurricane center, 2019)… due to climatic change…

>Two million acres of woods destroyed in California - again - in 2020… Five hundred billion dollars p.a. (65% from private sector) are estimated to be needed to reverse USA’s present course towards zero pollution by 205048.

Humanity had a chance, at the turn of the previous century, when engines constructed based on oil, while there were other alternatives (Arthur, 1994)! Surely this was rather early! Now is, however, rather late!

Commendable is the recent decision of the President of EU Commission, Mrs. Ursula von der Leyen, to protect EU environment. Consequently, German car manufacturers have to stop, at once, producing traditional car engines! We believe49 that EU is firmly determined to upgrade EU environmental protection policy, and speed it-up this time.

She, in an action under the proverb, we reckon, “better late than never”, announced50, in her speech in European Parliament, the issue of ?50 billion of “Green Bonds” to finance an EU “green growth”. Creating also a hope for reducing gases to the atmosphere of Europe. Can one stone kill two birds? Growth and CC? Our world obviously built on a wrong assumption: abundant, cheap and friendly to environment, fuel: i.e. oil. But oil since 1973 is no more abundant or cheap51 or friendly …The new EU plan aims at achieving an increased %, i.e. 55% reduction of pollution, (against previous 40%), up to 2030 (in EU), comparatively with the 1990 levels.

The EU climatic policy caused the immediate reaction of “European Union of Car Manufacturers” (ACEA), and especially that of… German car manufactures, who also called to stop immediately producing traditional car engines, and to reduce releases of CO2 by ½ by 2021! A clear “push” is towards electric cars etc., where, however, USA car manufacturers52 seem to be more competitive… USA car manufacturers plan to spend $300b to prepare electric cars between 2025 and 2030.

The Green EU policy can be summarized in Table 3.

We all know that CC is accomplished eventually at an increasing momentum as time elapses, but a global unanimous front is still lacking, despite Kyoto and Paris summits! Who was more sensitive in avoiding climatic destruction worldwide (Table 4), judging by the funds devoted?

As shown, the funds devoted for sustainable investments, since 2012, increased by 2.3 times, reaching $31 trillion in 2018. EU is a pioneer with a 46% share, followed by USA (39%).

The 27 EU ministries of environment agreed in 23^rd/10/20 in Luxembourg for the complete and final elimination of CO₂ emissions (except Bulgaria). This on top of the “R&RF-Recovery & Resilience Facility”, devoting funds from an EU budget for 2021-2027 of ?,074tr. EU means business on environment. In the case of shipping, EU was determined to “push” IMO⁵³ so that international shipping to enter into the “EU emissions trading system”—EU-ETS. The final aim of EU is to reduce immediately CO₂ emissions from large ships.

Ten top firms in USA achieved⁵⁴ (in 2018) a revenue of $182b, of which $71b was the value of emitted greenhouse gases (Scan 1)! So, if above firms were obliged to cut down emissions, they would have to abandon 39% of their revenue… In fact, state subsidized those firms, as it spent $67b for the health of above companies’ employees!

Scan 1. Can Profits and Pollution “produce” together? Source: Reuters; modified.

Source: EU Commission policy “Europe’s next generation”, 2020.

Now, Profits = PQ – C {9}. Profits are the residual between revenue (quantity produced, and sold, times the unit (fixed) price P (in pure competition) and total cost C. Inserting in {9}, equations {1} and {3}, and setting partial derivatives to zero, with respect to the five inputs, we can get also for this for the environment: P * MPe - P5 = 0 {10} for profit maximization or cost minimization: P5 = P*MPe {11}. Equation {11} means that environment can be polluted up to the point where the “value of its marginal product” equals its price (= the unit value of GHG emissions). If a Government wishes to eliminate GHG pollution, then it has to place a tax equal to P5. This amount can be devoted subsequently to support state health system and environmental improvement.