Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Background
There is a common opinion that the COVID-19 pandemic has a positive impact on the environment. Reducing the consumption of fossil fuels means lower carbon dioxide emissions from burning them. In March 2020, the European Space Agency traces a significant decrease in air pollution in many countries. The scientists registered a decline in emissions of harmful nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) and carbon monoxide (CO) from industry and vehicles (European Space Agency, 2020a, 2020b).
The standpoint of the opossum
The environmental impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is ambiguous, and there are certain negative consequences. To protect against the virus, people began to use masks, gloves, wipes, and sanitizers. They are difficult to dispose of. Some factories have suspended their work and stopped supplying recyclable materials to processing plants (Lal et al., 2020). As a result, the coronavirus has the potential to cause significant damage to waste management infrastructure. This is especially dangerous for animals, since masks are made of non-woven synthetic materials, and sea inhabitants mistake them for food (Espejo et al., 2020). The rise of e-commerce involves increased plastic packing (Lal et al., 2020). In the United States, the use of single-use plastic has increased by 250-300% since the start of the pandemic (Lal et al., 2020).
When two points conflict
The first perspective oversimplifies the problem and presents only a partial picture. In “pre-pandemic” times, it was actually easier to care about ecology and the planet. Experts agree that the respite for the Earth’s atmosphere due to the coronavirus will be temporary: as quarantine measures ease and the global economy recovers, emissions will almost certainly return to normal levels (Espejo et al., 2020).
Thus, it is premature to conclude that the COVID-19 pandemic has a positive impact on the environment. Moreover, it is not enough to look only at the emission levels to argue that nature has rested from people’s activities.
Issue management: Improving ecological practices during the COVID-19 pandemics
Search for technical solutions that will allow one to achieve a similar anti-pollution effect without disrupting the usual rhythm of people’s life. Reusable containers, mugs, bottles, and other items can be safely used during a pandemic, provided basic hygiene is maintained. Development of systems for processing and disposal of waste in the pandemic context. Careful estimation of the COVID-19 pandemic impact on the environment without rushing to conclusions.
Conclusion: When opossums rightly see the ‘dark side’
Experts and laypeople believe in the magical impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the environment. The reason for such belief is the data of an impressive decrease in air pollution due to the drastic reduction of people’s harmful activities. However, there is the ‘dark side’ of people’s attempts to mitigate the pandemic: an unprecedented rise in undisposed medical waste and plastic. Moreover, it is not possible to be happy with the anti-pollution decrease for it is temporary. People should find sustainable solutions for the same-old problems which are not being solved.
Supposed conversation with the opossum regarding the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on the environment
Respondent: Mr. Opossum, I am happy to tell you that people have stopped to harm the planet. You are going to be fine, and your family is going to live in a clean environment.
Opossum: Really? How did it happen?
Respondent: Oh, you see, there is the data which says that air pollution has drastically decreased!
Opossum: This is so promising! How did you manage to do it?
Respondent: The COVID-19 pandemics happened, and people needed to stay home, our movements and activities almost stopped.
Opossum: So you are saying that you, people, just stopped living your lives instead of changing it? I was so intrigued in the first place, and now… Do you know that my friends are having extremely hard times right now because there is so much waste from you? Have you not considered this side?
Respondent: You are right; it sounds like we, people, rushed to conclusions. Although the decrease in air pollution sounds promising, we should think of new sustainable lifestyles and infrastructures. Of course, it is not enough, and now I see that the positive impact is short-term in its nature, and the negative consequences are really alarming.
References
Espejo, W., Celis, J. E., Chiang, G., & Bahamonde, P. (2020). Environment and COVID-19: Pollutants, impacts, dissemination, management and recommendations for facing future epidemic threats. Science of The Total Environment, 747, 141314.
European Space Agency (2020a). Coronavirus: Nitrogen dioxide emissions drop over Italy.
European Space Agency (2020b). COVID-19: Nitrogen dioxide over China. Web.
Lal, P., Kumar, A., Kumar, S., Kumari, S., Saikia, P., Dayanandan, A.,… & Khan, M. L. (2020). The dark cloud with a silver lining: Assessing the impact of the SARS COVID-19 pandemic on the global environment. Science of the Total Environment, 732, 139297.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.