Impacts to our Environment During COVID-19

Sunset.png

A large percentage of the news these days is about the devastating global crisis of the COVID-19.  By March 30, 2020, COVID-19 had claimed more than 35,000 lives worldwide, with about 750,000 confirmed cases across more than 170 countries. The epidemic has created economic despair for millions of people worldwide. However, as a small ray of light (some hope to keep us sane), I started reading more about the "good", unexpected, consequences of the epidemic on the environment. A positive side of humans' reducing levels of activities comes in the form of decline in pollution. In the news, there are pictures of clean waters in Venice, clear skies around Beirut, Lebanon, and in New Delhi, India, one of the most polluted cities in the world, where the reduction in air contamination has been reported all across India.  Satellite images also show cleaner air in China, Spain, Italy, and New York and Los Angeles in the United States. In Wuhan, the air contamination dropped 25%, and coal use fell by 40% since the last quarter of 2019. New Delhi’s Air Quality Index (AQI), which sometimes can be over 500 AQI, had a reading of 28 AQI the week of April 1, 2020, and the top of the Himalayas can be seen from parts of Northern India. Also, in the United States, levels of air pollution in New York have been reduced by nearly 50% compared with this time last year, and the smog over Los Angeles has dissipated.

Positive changes in the environment due to decrease of human activity is not new. There are records of similar patterns in the past. For example, analysis of bubbles trapped in ice cores showed reduced CO2 levels in the atmosphere during the Black Death in Europe in the 14th Century, and during the epidemics of diseases such as smallpox brought to South America by the Spanish conquistadors in the 16th Century. Similarly, during the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009, there was reduced industrial activity that manifested in a drop in carbon emissions of 1.3% of global emissions. The reduction we see now seems to be the product of the diminution of emissions from industrial processes, manufacturing and construction which make up 18.4% of global anthropogenic emissions. Additionally, with people staying home, transportation has decreased, which makes up another 23 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, from which cars produce 72% and planes 11%. Yet this can change rapidly when the COVID-19 crisis is over, as we have seen in the past, and jump to an all-time high as we saw in 2010 when the economy recovered; which means that after this period, human activities and level of pollution may increase higher than before the pandemic and our environment will suffer the consequences. 

Conversely, we are starting to see the negative effects of the pandemic as costs are enormous for the poor, small businesses, and countries' economies. Another negative consequence is that some U.S. cities like Fayetteville, AR and Dalton, GA have stopped recycling programs due to the risk of spreading the virus in recycling centers. Other cities have banned the use of reusable bags for groceries, cups, and containers for food take-outs; for example, cities from Bellingham, Washington, to Albuquerque, New Mexico, have announced a pause on plastic bag bans. There is also a rise in online shopping, which comes with large amounts of packaging that will end up in landfills, and people are stockpiling food they will not be able to eat and that will become waste.

Moreover, there is an increase in medical waste that can theoretically contaminate the environment, and if not managed properly, it is a possible source of infection. As COVID-19 cases continue to grow, hospitals and other medical facilities have an increase of garbage of masks, gloves, booties, bed linens, cups, plates, towels, packaging, and disposable medical equipment. During the peak of the epidemic in Wuhan, China, the city's medical waste increased from 40 tons to 240 tons and they are still dealing with the problem. It is unclear if U.S. impacts might be similar, but the industrial sector is preparing for the large amount of waste that can overwhelm the trash collection industry. The regulatory guides and protocols for disposing of medical waste vary by location and they may change in months to come. Medical waste disposal currently follows procedures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and is overseen by state health and environmental departments. There are also concerns about the prolonged virus survival time on some surfaces. A study at the National Institutes of Health, the CDC, and some universities showed that the virus could live for up to three days in plastics and stainless steel, which will have a significant implication for waste and recycling workers. In order to ensure safe disposal of waste, the National Waste and Recycling Association (NWRA) has asked Congress and the Trump administration to include them in the national emergency declaration and to exempt medical waste transporters from Hours of Service (HOS) regulations. The NWRA also sent Congress an outline to modify the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration procedures concerning HOS exemptions for waste haulers in any future national emergency declarations. The draft singles out "motor carriers and drivers providing direct assistance in support of national emergency relief efforts", and incorporates "the collection of medical, residential, and commercial waste" as critical to federal aid. The industry is looking for flexibility relating to storage time and quantities as it braces for a potentially significant increase in volumes because companies may need extra time to meet their customer demands. Medical waste is a real threat to the environment, and I hope that there is a detailed standard protocol of how and where these types of waste will be disposed of across the US.    

Finally, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed appalling changes to necessary environmental rules. The EPA announced steps to protect the availability of gasoline during COVID-19 pandemic; yet, there is no shortage as people stay home, industry has slowed down, and gasoline needs are reduced! The Trump administration is rolling back the Obama administration’s fuel efficiency standards, using COVID-19 as an excuse to weaken the standards, and “handed a victory to the oil and gas industry”. The EPA drastically relaxed the rules for polluters citing the coronavirus pandemic. The policy sets "new guidelines for companies to monitor themselves for an undetermined period during the outbreak," and the E.P.A. will not pursue fines for violations of “compliance monitoring, integrity testing, sampling, laboratory analysis, training, and reporting or certification obligations.” Additionally, in 2019, the Trump Administration tried to remove the waiver issued by the Obama Administration's EPA to the California Air Resources Board in 2013, which let California set higher air quality standards than the federal government. If the EPA can invalidate California’s waiver, it may affect the 13 states (New Jersey, Connecticut, Washington, Vermont, New York, Maine, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Maryland, ​Washington D.C., ​Delaware, and ​Colorado) that follow California’s rules. I hope that the courts reject this revoked waiver and allow the states to set separate healthier pollution standards than those set by the federal government. Suspending EPA enforcement of regulations and setting low air quality standards would potentially add to the public health crisis, and the damage to the ecosystem will be significant as it may increase greenhouse emissions. Additionally, it signals to industry that environmental regulations are optional, which damages the long-term predictability that drives investments in clean technologies.