Was Covid-19 a blessing in disguise for the environment?

With the Covid-19 pandemic end in sight, what are the effects the pandemic has caused us? To tackle the Covid-19 pandemic, we have essentially introduced even more items into the buffet of pollution, from the introduction of more than normal levels of plastic waste to mass usage of disinfection agents (see March 11 post). But despite these problems, did the pandemic provide a silver lining?

One thing that the pandemic has brought to the buffet of pollution is the amount of plastic that is now introduced into the environment. To produce the various medical supplies at medical grade quality, such as the need for the item to be sterile, we use a lot of plastic for packaging. For example, China reported a 370% surge in medical waste production as a direct result of the pandemic (Silva, et al. 2021). The major problem with using so much of such medical-grade plastic is its property to be “resistant to degradation” (Shams, Alam and Mahbub 2021). The rampant usage of these medical items during the heat of the pandemic would only hunt us eventually as these plastics make their way into the environment, generally through a variety of ways, such as the common landfills or introduced into the atmosphere via incineration (Shams, Alam and Mahbub 2021). Eventually, these plastics would break down into tiny pieces, such as Microplastics or even nanoplastics, that we eventually become exposed to over time (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: The transport of plastic waste Source: (Shams, Alam and Mahbub 2021)

Beyond plastic pollution, how about the other forms of pollution that we constantly introduce into the environment during the pandemic? It was found that the lockdowns globally were beneficial in improving air quality outdoors due to the drastic reductions in routine human activities. There was a significant drop in the concentrations of Nitrogen Dioxide and PM2.5 particles (Zambrano-Monserrate, Ruano and Sanchez-Alcalde 2020). This can be illustrated in the case of China, which saw a sharp drop in such pollution (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Nitrogen Dioxide concentrations in troposphere (Zambrano-Monserrate, Ruano and Sanchez-Alcalde 2020)

Such a drastic change was only possible because routine pollution events, such as the mass usage of internal combustion vehicles, were sharply reduced through the enforcement of lockdowns. The short-circuiting of the economy generally provided cleaner outdoor air. Additionally, the extensive duration of these lockdowns, while damaging to the economy, did not cause a catastrophic collapse of society. Instead, adaptations to how we live were made eventually. For example, the economy suddenly shifted towards one that is less reliant on travelling to the office but took advantage of the internet as a means to conduct business while maintaining travel for activities that necessarily required it. While inequalities were present, adaptation was the way to survive, and those who could adapt generally fared better compared to those who could not (Agba, Ocheni and Agba 2020).

Do we need more pandemics?

Pandemics hurt; they cause inconveniences, deaths and various other negative externalities such as enhanced plastic waste. However, these pandemics also give society a chance to adapt. With the Covid-19 pandemic ending, societies are going back to the old ways, which is problematic since the old way has led to an economic system that is simply unsustainable for the environment. The predicament is which is the worser evil?

Ironically, if there are more global pandemics, this presents a forced opportunity for us to normalise the new ways of living that is more beneficial for the environment that was triggered and maintained as a response to the severity of the pandemic. For example, telecommuting for jobs that do not require face-to-face interactions is one such adaptation. This benefits society as a whole, considering less usage of motor vehicles for commuting would mean better air quality from reduced exhaust-related pollution. By normalising better ways to live and work, we can give up the existing normalised ways that currently contribute greatly to pollution, such as air pollution from commuting. Cutting back on consumption drastically would be faster than creating new technologies that may not necessarily resolve the problem entirely. Nevertheless, this nature-based solution also presents problematic side effects like the abovementioned plastic issue.

Bibliography

Agba, A. M. Ogaboh, Stepen I. Ocheni, and Michael Sunday Agba. 2020. “COVID-19 and the World of Work Dynamics: A Critical Review.” Journal of Educational and Social Research (Richtmann Publishing) 10 (5): 119 – 130. doi:https://doi.org/10.36941/jesr-2020-0093 .

Shams, Mehnaz, Iftaykhairul Alam, and Md Shahriar Mahbub. 2021. “Plastic pollution during COVID-19: Plastic waste directives and its long-term impact on the environment.” Environmental Advances (Elsevier) 5: 1 – 11. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envadv.2021.100119.

Silva, Ana L. Patrício, Joana C. Prata, Tony R. Walker, Armando C. Duarte, Wei Ouyang, and Damià Barcelò. 2021. “Increased plastic pollution due to COVID-19 pandemic: Challenges and recommendations.” Chemical Engineering Journal (Elsevier) 405: 1 – 9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.126683.

Zambrano-Monserrate, Manuel A., María Alejandra Ruano, and Luis Sanchez-Alcalde. 2020. “Indirect effects of COVID-19 on the environment.” Science of the Total Environment (Elsevier) 728: 1 – 4. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138813.