Environmental Wins During a Global Pandemic
The COVID-19 crisis has been plaguing the world for a few months now and the light at the end of the tunnel to most is being released from isolation and to be allowed in the same room as people not in your household. Going back to work seems like a luxury, let alone going out with your friends or hugging another human being.
But for the planet, the light at the end of a long tunnel of exploitation, pollution, degradation and destruction, is now. Albeit this is likely a fleeting light in the history of the earth, and one that will be diminished as soon as we find a way to deal with the virus. Even if it takes a year of semi-to-full lockdown, in the history of the planet, this is a very short time period. For our lives and our economies, it seems like forever, but for the planet this is barely a weekend.
COVID-19 is not a blessing for anyone. It could end up doing more harm than good to the planet, as I will discuss in another post. However in these uncertain and distressing times, it's hard not to notice that the environment is winning where we are all losing - possibly for the first time since the industrial revolution.
This does not mean COVID-19 is something to be celebrated. Celebrating COVID-19 is not only insensitive, but it's also illogical. However, that does not mean we cannot notice positive changes in the world as a direct or indirect result of the pandemic. And there are many. I'm going to focus on three.
1. Greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions are down.
International air travel is a majorly guilty party contributing to global GHG emissions. Any situation in which air travel is limited will result in less GHG emissions, which can only be seen as a positive step when looking at the world through a purely environmental lens. Seeing so many cancelled flights, locked down borders, and travel bans means the amount of carbon pumped into the atmosphere during this period will be significantly lower. Anthropogenic (human-induced) GHG emissions cause climate change. Slowing the rate and reducing the quantity of GHGs in the atmosphere is essential for tackling climate change.
Reducing air travel globally will be necessary to keep global temperature from rising above 1.5°C, which has been accepted by scientists as the threshold before which we will have done irreversible damage to the planet. This pandemic has shown us we are capable of limiting our air travel, if we see how it can directly impact our lives. I hope we see how climate change will directly impact our lives before it's too late.
Air travel is not the only way emissions are down. Due to lockdown in China, which included factories and power plants, and meant less cars on the road, nitrogen dioxide emissions were down 40% in some cities, and were significantly reduced in Italy as well. Global energy and carbon emissions were down 25% and coal consumption by power plants fell 36% (data from the Centre for Research and Clean Air).
Air travel is not the only way emissions are down. Due to lockdown in China, which included factories and power plants, and meant less cars on the road, nitrogen dioxide emissions were down 40% in some cities, and were significantly reduced in Italy as well. Global energy and carbon emissions were down 25% and coal consumption by power plants fell 36% (data from the Centre for Research and Clean Air).
2. Bans on Wildlife Trade
Due to speculations over the origins of the coronavirus being from a range of wildlife meat products, China banned all wildlife trade. Whether the virus came from these products is unclear, but the trade in wildlife certainly enabled the early spread of the disease. Of course, this ban only relates to legal wildlife trade. The black markets are likely to continue. But, a ban does send a clear message. The government would not do this if they did not feel the wildlife trade posed a significant threat to human safety. Would you buy something if you thought it might give you coronavirus?
Obviously, the answer is a simple no. But unfortunately, the question is not that simple. Trade in certain wildlife products is not just food, it's traditional medicine. While we can sit here in the west and judge traditional medicines from the comfort of our living rooms, deciding it's nonsense, doesn't work, and is far inferior to our better, newer, shinier branch of medicine, that doesn't mean that people won't buy it. If you truly believe something works, you will continue to believe that. These beliefs are old, some older than Christianity, and deeply rooted in many communities. And, the placebo effect is a thing that does happen - when a patient is cured due to their belief in the treatment, rather than the treatment itself (usually due to inactive treatment).
So, if you have cancer and you truly believe a product will cure you, would you buy it even if it meant risking coronavirus? It's suddenly not so black and white.
However, China's ban on wildlife trade is a huge leap in the right direction. Reducing wildlife trade helps minimise risk for endangered species. Again, we only took this necessary action when we were at risk.
3. Lethal shark nets removed in SA
This smaller, localised example is close to my heart as my masters thesis centred around the use of lethal shark nets for bather protection. In Kwa-Zulu Natal, South Africa, and many other countries including Australia, lethal shark nets are used at popular beaches under the pretence of keeping water users safe. Most people think these nets are a non-lethal barrier: they are not. They are a fishing device designed to catch and kill large sharks, but do not discriminate and such kill whales, turtles, dolphins, and a plethora of other marine wildlife.
South Africa announced a 21-day lockdown of the country this week, in which people must stay home except to shop for food and for medical emergencies. As part of this lockdown, the nets have been removed for 21 days. This is because no one is allowed out to maintain or remove them.
The nets are supposed to go back up at the end of the lockdown. I hope they don't.
For the record, there is no evidence they keep people safer than non-lethal alternatives, they are incredibly damaging to marine ecosystems, and people do not support their use.
Overall, environmentally speaking, it's not all bad. However, it's not all good either (as I will discuss in a subsequent post). I understand it's annoying for some to hear conservationists discussing this virus in a positive way. I hope it is clear that's not the intention. These potential "wins" for the environment do not detract from the literal losses to everyone else.
I personally, wish this virus wasn't happening. I wish we were all carrying on our normal lives. I wish the healthcare service was not being pushed to its' limits, and I wish people weren't dying.
I also wish we could and would start to tackle climate change with effective policy, real lifestyle change, and a better understanding of what we are doing to the future of this planet and our own species by not. I wish we would do this because we know it's necessary, and not because we are scared we will get a virus if we don't.
I personally, wish this virus wasn't happening. I wish we were all carrying on our normal lives. I wish the healthcare service was not being pushed to its' limits, and I wish people weren't dying.
I also wish we could and would start to tackle climate change with effective policy, real lifestyle change, and a better understanding of what we are doing to the future of this planet and our own species by not. I wish we would do this because we know it's necessary, and not because we are scared we will get a virus if we don't.
0 comments