Emily Pearson
Although the Coronavirus has been devastating to humans across the globe, it has had some unintended positive effects on our environments shedding light on ways we could possibly change our ways in the future. These environmental effects have provided a beacon of hope for many in a dark time, and have caused people to be more appreciative of the nature around them.
One positive effect has been that carbon emissions and air pollution are down in affected nations as a result of the virus. China and Italy, two countries that have been hit especially hard, have seen massive drops in carbon emissions as a result of the virus. Within these countries there has been less travel by air, and land as people are confined within their homes. China has also seen massive drops in nitrogen dioxide, a by-product of fossil fuel combustion, as factories have been shut down and there is less vehicle use. However, experts warn that emissions will bounce back following the quarantines. How countries respond to the pandemic will have massive effects in the future of green energy. Energy companies will be less likely to invest in green energy projects following the pandemic if subsidies or packages aren't offered by the government. This pandemic although devastating provides an excellent opportunity for real change.
Another effect that has been popular on social media is the Venice Canals in Italy. As fewer tourists visit Italy, and natives are confined to their homes, the sediment in the canals has settled and the water has become more clear. Natives can also now see small fish swimming in the canals. Sadly, the change in the canals' visibility is not due to improved water quality. The lack of boat traffic has stopped the sediment from being stirred up. However, it has been a positive experience for many Venice natives as they watch nature seemingly take back the canals. This event to them is a beacon of light in the global pandemic and has opened their eyes to the effects they have on their environment.
The quarantine caused by the Coronavirus has also had a profound affect on the wildlife in Japan and Thailand that rely on tourists to feed them. In Japan, Nara Park is a popular attraction where tourists can pay to feed the sika deer which have been trained to bow before receiving food. As people are refraining from travelling, these deer are not being fed by tourists. They are leaving the park and roaming the city looking for food. This is not safe for the deer that rarely leave the park because they could be struck and killed by a car or ingest something that could be toxic for them, and locals are conflicted about whether they should continue to feed the deer or not.
In Thailand, macaques that are usually fed by tourists have been brawling in the streets. They have become accustomed to being fed by humans, and so become overaggressive when they are not. These brawls suggest that resources are scarce for the macaques, and so they are fighting over what remains. However, scientists assure that the animals will be fine if left alone. Their diets are flexible and they can fend for themselves. Feeding animals can unintentionally create populations larger than can naturally be sustained. The pandemic has shed light on how our actions can affect wildlife living in cities for better or worse.
Questions:
What is one way that governments can make changes now to push for a move to renewable energy after the pandemic?
Do you think feeding animals in cities has had an overall negative effect on them?
Has being in quarantine made you more appreciative of nature overall?
Will you make any changes in your life when the pandemic is over to reduce your carbon footprint?
Sources:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/21/air-pollution-falls-as-coronavirus-slows-travel-but-it-forms-a-new-threat.html
https://www.sciencealert.com/china-s-carbon-emissions-suddenly-dropped-recently-but-not-for-the-best-reasons
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/venice-canals-clear-water-scli-intl/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/science/hungry-monkeys-deer-coronavirus.html
28 comments:
I think one way that governments can make changes to push for a move to renewable energy is by limiting the amount of nonrenewable energy sources used. Although this is unlikely to happen, putting a limit on nonrenewable energy will force companies to seek renewable energy sources. In regards to feeding animals in cities, I don't think humans had realized they had made animals reliant on them as a food source. Obviously, nobody expected that there would be a global pandemic that forces the entire population to go into quarantine, which means that there was no thought as to how animals would be impacted once humans were no longer there to feed them. I think quarantine has made me appreciate nature more as I don't get to go out and experience it for myself.
I believe that one way the government can push to a usage of more renewable energy is by making big business and corporation only use renewable energy. I believe this is the best way to go because big corporation most likely use up a lot of non renewable energy. Also, If we target businesses, we are not necessarily asking households to change, which is a benefit. Coming to me, being in quarantine made me realize how important nature and the outdoors is and how I’m taking it for granted. I wasn’t really allowed outside of the house much, so I now understand the value of being in nature. Also, being indoors I realized how much of an effect a single person like me can have on my environment, so when things go back to normal again, I will be aware of what I’m doing and how big my carbon footprint might be getting.
I believe that the events that have been illuminated in the COVID-19 pandemic have given governments even more cause to push stricter legislation to combat the climate crisis. It is amazing to see how, in such little time, these countries can be transformed in positive ways with the limiting of human activity. These events also truly show the doubtlessly massive impacts that humans make on their environment each and every day. In some way, COVID-19 seems to be Earth’s vaccine, making us the virus. We must look to the small actions we can take in our own life to improve our carbon footprint, while also demanding governments take grander, widespread action-- there can be no more denying the severity of human activity on our world’s climate.
I don’t think humans feeding animals is the problem, the same way that I don’t think people driving cars is bad. It’s just that so many people are using it. Animals have adapted to live in cities both through evolution (like rats growing toxic resistance to eat out of trash) to behavioral adaptation (like pigeons building nests on street signs). If they find that a city enviornment is no longer sustaining them, then they will be able to adapt again. To reduce carbon emissions, I think more people could try and use communal transportation or transit systems like subways and trains, even after the whole virus blows over.
It is interesting to see the positive effects of this virus, even though it may seem that there aren't any. It is also interesting to see how this drastic change in human lifestyle affects the rest of the ecosystem. As humans leave the streets and their cars, the environment and its inhabitants see both good and bad changes. China has also closed wet markets due to this pandemic, drastically reducing the number of poached exotic species, including pangolins, bats, and bears. In the future, this pandemic could encourage governments of developing countries to regulate and monitor wet markets to ensure a similar virus does not return. As air travel slows, less air and water pollution occurs. However, as more people stay home, electricity usage only increases. This unprecedented time has highlighted the impact of humans on the environment in ways that are both positive and negative.
One possible method to help advocate for a move to renewable energy after the pandemic would be the use of laws and regulation limiting or even prohibiting the use of non-renewable energy sources. This pandemic sheds light to how much humans truly impact the environment, and with the noticeable difference, hopefully, we will start to implement more environmentally sound practices into our daily lives. I also believe that humans have had a big impact on animal populations in urban areas. They are definitely capable of adapting to the lack of human provided food. To reduce our carbon footprint we must be mindful of our daily choices and make ones that are better for the environment.
As the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases top 600,000 and continue to increase, I think it is impractical to focus on changing laws and regulations in order to protect the environment. It would be disingenuous to focus on the less significant and detrimental problem at hand. The coronavirus has proved to have severe adverse affects on the lively-hood and health of people and the economy. Therefore, our number one concern should be to contain the virus and ensure the safety of the millions at risk and who are suffering its consequences. In addition, I believe that legislation will naturally tend towards a more sustainable environment as many of the precautionary steps that are being taken to prevent another pandemic are having indirect positive affects on the environment. At the moment, our priority should revolve around the safety of everyone and then it would be in our best interest to focus on the environment and the safety of future generations.
I low key find it really interesting that all the pollution and carbon emissions decrease that drastically in a matter of a couple of weeks and how animals are magically returning back to their original territories. Which makes me wonder what would happen once the pandemic is over, would there animals disappear again? Would pollution and carbon emissions shoot back up again? There is so many possibilities of what could happen and many people look to the government for answers, but honestly, they probably have never experienced these kinds of things too, so blaming them for whatever occurs is not really fair. I do believe minimal human contact with the natural wildlife is safest as the corona virus essentially came from animals, there is so many risks that we could expose ourselves to that we don’t know about. I also agree that as soon as the pandemic is over it is the perfect time to rebuild and create a more environmentally friendly that could keep the waters and atmosphere clean.
During my time in self-isolation, I’ve enjoyed looking at the positive effects that this awful pandemic has resulted in. I think COVID-19 has given governments a glimpse of what is possible, in terms of the drastic changes in carbon emissions. One way that the government can lessen the use of nonrenewable resources is by limiting the amount of nonrenewable resources used and push for renewable resources. Though this would be difficult, it would reduce the amount of nonrenewable resources that are being consumed. In regards to the animals venturing into cities, I don’t think anyone realized just how major the impacts of humans was on them. When this pandemic is over, we should work to keep some of the changes we made that had a positive effect on the environment.
It has been interesting read about everything that the pandemic has caused. Though it is a very negative virus going around, it has had some benefits to our environment. I think we could change things from a legal standpoint. Creating a stricter legislation can help the government more to renewable energy. Being in quarantine has made me realize that I actually enjoy going outside. I go on 3 walks a day with my dog and it has been great to get outdoors so often then before. I think to save our environment we all need to reduce our carbon footprint. I have not driven my car in more than two but that isn’t always something I can do. We need to figure out different ways in our day-to-day life that can be cut down to help our environment.
I believe that for each of us, the COVID-19 virus has affected us on different levels. Although the virus has drastically affected many of our lives, I agree that it has also led to positive environmental impacts. Pollution levels around the world have gone down. In Venice, the water level of the river is sinking. To ensure that people continue to take steps in the right direction on an environmental level, governments should make policies and laws that restrict the use of fossil fuels through airplanes, cars, and factories. Maybe, one week of each month, or one month of the year, all factories could be shut down.
I think that this pandemic is revealing the cracks in the infrastructure that has bound modern societies for so long. Despite the negative effects on the human quality of life, our time in self-isolation is benefitting all other kinds of life. The positive impacts of mass quarantine on the environment cannot go ignored. I think that in order to continue this progress in a positive direction, governments should heed this data as a positive projection of how quickly we can turn things around. In order to stem climate change, we could perhaps implement restrictions on how long factories can run, restrict the use of fossil fuels, or widely implement other energy sources.
COVID-19 is showing us exactly what would happen if humans had little to no effect on the environment. Wildlife is hesitantly starting to thrive, pollution has gone down, the rivers in Venice are clean for once, and air does taste a little crisper. Once we have overcome this pandemic, there will be calls for change. Stricter regulations on factories should be implemented, et cetera, et cetera. The most interesting thing that this pandemic has shown us is how easily the government can pull money from thin air. That money could've come much sooner, and could have done so much more, like help homeless populations, provide medicare for every person in the USA, and help families that could not afford to feed themselves. This pandemic is going to change the world, and if there is resistance to that change, then we may see a violent entrance to a new world.
During this time many people are worrying on and on about the horrible impact COVID-19 has had on us, but for the environment, it truly has been beneficial. It is reverting back to a time when humans didn't take the environment for advantage and use it carelessly. After the threat is over and people will resume their normal activities it is important to keep our practicing the good habits formed in these times. Through a limit on carbon emissions used per day or enforcing walking to nearby places like we have been doing right now, our pollution levels can stay low and the positive impacts of this time can be long-lasting. However, with the wildlife, human intervention has impacted them greatly as they have lost key wildlife skills such as acquiring food and being independent. This is problematic because now especially, these animals do not know what to do without the daily flow of humans feeding them. Right now our best option is to let them be and hope that in this time of being away from nature, it reverts itself and the human mark lessens.
I think the best way to push companies to use renewable energy is to offer incentives and subsidies. The main reason why companies don’t use renewable energy in the first place is because it’s expensive and not “worth it” from a company standpoint. Feeding animals has always been an issue, however these negative effects described are only appearing because humans are no longer interacting with the animals. I think that once the pandemic is over, animals will continue to be fed. The important question is how feeding animals in general is unhealthy, and it’s worth looking into. I have been in my backyard for the first time in months because of this virus. I helped my dad build shelves and organize the garage and even went biking around the neighborhood. I am now realizing that being outside is kind of nice and that I should go out more often. I might decide to walk to nearby places rather than drive one the pandemic is over.
I don’t think it is necessarily a bad thing to feed animals. If this pandemic never occurred, the animals wouldn’t be aggressive towards each other, they would continue living their lives normally. However, they do change their behaviors from scavenging for food to just waiting for people to feed them leftovers. So maybe it is a bad thing. One way the government could continue this use of renewable energy would be set regulations on travel, just like what’s happening now. There should be restricted travel, maybe not to the extent of what’s happening now, but a type of restriction.
Honestly, before reading this blog, I never realized how much this pandemic effected the environment because I was focused on the devastating effects of the virus on the human population. I think that governments can push to move to renewable energy by placing stricter regulations. These limitations could restrict companies and factories from using nonrenewable resources such as fossil fuels as their main energy source, or possibly even using them altogether. This would help keep the carbon emission and nitrogen dioxide levels low. I do think that feeding animals in cities has had a negative effect on them because it provided the wild animals with easy access to food. This may cause these animals to become overdependent on humans to provide them with food, making them unable to take care of themselves. As mentioned in this blog, this caused the deer to leave the park and be more prone to accidents and resulted in the overaggressive macaques.
Reading this blog post reminded me of Avengers Endgame as environmental conditions are similar to when Thanos snapped and erased half of the human population. I remember in particular when Captain America mentions how he saw whales in the Hudson River due to the lack of human tampering. Although it is beautiful to see nature reclaim the Earth, I think it will only last a little while. When this whole pandemic is over, I feel like companies and factories will be in a frenzy to make up for the time and money lost during quarantine. In such a case, environmental improvement would have taken a step forward, only to take two steps back. It is also heartbreaking to see how some animals have become dependent on humans in order to survive, messing with the scales of nature. Although evolution plays out in populations and not individuals over the course of many years, I still think this dependency is for the worst. Nevertheless, being in quarantine has definitely made me more appreciative of nature as I spend more time outdoors, even if it is in my own backyard.
To be quite honest, I’m not sure if the environmental changes made during the pandemic would last after the pandemic eventually ends. I really do hope government can enact more environmental regulations that encourage renewable energy after the pandemic, but like you said, most companies wouldn’t try to do so unless they received some subsidies or monetary value from this. Feeding animals in cities most likely has an overall negative effect on them as these animals rely less on survival adaptations and more on humans, which becomes problematic when they run wild. Being in quarantine has definitely made me more appreciative of nature overall as I have more time to bask in my own garden! When the pandemic is over, I would probably try to spend more time in nature than I used to before the pandemic so that I will do less recreational activities that emit carbon hopefully.
As beautiful as it is to see the environment thriving as a result of a recent virus I fear the economic downturn brought by coved could lead to a overall negative impact on nature. Coronavirus has led to an astonishing shutdown of economic activity and a corresponding drastic reduction in the use of fossil fuels. However, a global recession as a result of coronavirus shutdowns could also slow or stall the shift to clean energy. If markets are tanking, it will become difficult for companies to secure financing for planned solar, wind and electric grid projects, and it could tank proposals for new projects. Renewable energy projects around the world may stumble as companies are too focused on their bottom line and staying afloat. A recession could also shift priorities of people, it's harder to buy the more expensive but sustainable brands over the cheap and not environmentally friendly brands.
I think that feeding animals in cities has had an overall negative effect on them. These animals are now having to rely on humans to supply them with food rather than rely on their own instincts to secure food. Because of these animal’s continued dependency on the humans, they cannot get any food and do not know what to do. If we hadn’t started feeding the animals in the first place, these animals would likely have survived much easier at a time like this. I have always been very appreciative of nature, but i don't think my appreciation would increase. I know that nature has remained the same as before, so now i only miss it.
Despite practically every single industry plummeting into an economic crisis, it’s nice to see the environment’s doing well as a result. While there’s less air travel overall, China is beginning to see its flight capacity increase again as March had 20% more flights compared to February. Before hearing about the Venice Canals clearing up, I had always assumed that they were dirty. Seeing them clear and populated with fish is awesome. If animals were to be fed in cities, this would cause problems as the animals would likely return to the cities more frequently to receive food, resulting in more deaths. Being in quarantine has truly made me appreciate the outdoors and being able to travel. Depending on how the economy “bounces back”, I’d expect environmental conditions to gradually improve until everything returns to normal.
I think that a way for governments to implement renewable energy sources is to cut back and restrict the use of non-renewable resources. If the world can cut back on all unnecessary non renewable resource use, the environment will improve greatly. I think cities should stop feeding animals, because it creates dependency on humans to survive which is unhealthy for animals. As Covid-19 continues to spread, it will be interesting to see what environmental impacts come out of this and whether they will be positive or negative.
It’s quite pleasant to hear something positive going on at this time, especially like something so surprising. Though everything is going well for the environment right now, it will only punch us right back once we all hit the ground running when this coronavirus situation is over (like you said). In fact, the environment might face a huge impact when its over because of all the places people needed to travel to and the things they needed to do will all rapidly begin once everyone’s out of quarantine. This sudden influx of action will surely put the environment back to its original state, and if not, even worse. Government should work to help limit the amount of airline travel and local governments should begin to clear different areas at different times so it’s not just one sudden action and everyone has ants in their pants. We need to be cautious once this is over, so we can help keep things the way it is, and possibly even better.
It definitely makes sense that the environment is doing much better right now, because way fewer people are in their cars, planes, or businesses. However, once this is all over, it will go right back to normal, so we still need to make efforts to reduce our impact. I do think this pandemic has made me more appreciative of being outside, and hopefully it has had the same effect on others as well. Despite the depressing nature of this situation, it's nice to see at least something positive.
There are multiple policy propositions that have already been placed in the aether of legislation that is sitting in Congress. Implementing resolutions like the Green New Deal or even less ambitious plans, such as nuclear energy, are different ways that the government can implement renewable energy. Animals in urban areas need access to food, and when their habitats or overrun and destroyed, humans seem to be the easiest source of food. As a generality, there should be incentives to stop artificially feedings animals but they do need food so it is an interesting dilemma.
I think it is ironic that hospitals work tirelessly to help saves lives but still substantially contribute to the deterioration of the environment. However, I feel like it is also our responsibility to help these hospitals help the environment because they can’t be doing everything on their own. Although drugs released into the environment are not as bad as carbon emissions, I feel like we should still pay attention to them, because every little thing helps the environment.
Althoguh I agree that human ‘absense’ is doing the planet a lot of good, there are also many consequences that have yet to take a toll. I frequent many coffee shops, both independent and chains, and typically get reusable cups to help reduce waste. To prevent spread of corona however, many places like Starbucks and independent coffee shops have stopped using mugs and giving refills, but instead using a far greater quantity of plastic and waste that will end up in landfills or oceans. While this is definitely necessary to stall and stop the spread of the virus, I’m curious to see how this increased waste and step backwards in environmentally friendly procedures will hurt the environment in the long run. I am very encouraged by the clearing of the canals and stalled pollution though, so I view this as a good thing for the environment.
Post a Comment