Special

Article 4

Covid-19 & Environmental
Sustainability

By Vesselin Popovski

There has never been such a sudden and dramatic challenge to theworld in the 21st century as the Covid-19 pandemic, which has
become simultaneously: (1) a test of leadership; (2) a test ofinternational co-operation; (3) a test of medical capacity; (4) a test of
human-human relationship; and (5) a test of human relationship withnature.
Many leaders failed the first test, most notably those of big
countries, like the United States, Brazil, the United Kingdom, India,
South Africa, Mexico, and initially China too. Interestingly, the female
leaders of Germany, Taiwan, New Zealand, Finland, and Iceland gave
excellent examples of good governance during the pandemic. The
second test – international co-operation – has also failed, partly
because of some internal problems within the World HealthOrganization (WHO) but more crucially because of President Donald
Trump’s decision to stop financing the WHO, significantly
jeopardizing global health governance and international relations.
The third test – medical capacity – is still unfolding, with the
expectation that various research institutes may produce a safe andaccessible vaccine soon. The fourth test – the human-humanrelationship – presented some remarkable stories of empathy,solidarity, volunteerism and assistance, but Covid-19 also increased
tensions in places where xenophobia and conspiracies theories
spread.
The fifth test – the human relationship with nature – will be
discussed below in this article.

Zoonotic Diseases
The human relationship with nature is twofold: on the one hand,
we need nature to stay active and improve our physical and mental
health, crucially important during disasters such as pandemics. On
the other hand, through improper interaction with nature, humans
have altered ecosystems, encroached into wildlife and graduallycontributed to the emergence of zoonotic diseases, the latest being
Covid-19. Growing land-clearing for agriculture and humansettlements resulted in squeezing and mixing species from different
habitats, creating an “excellent” opportunity for viruses to pass fromone animal to another, and to humans. Another cause for the
emergence of zoonotic diseases is the biodiversity loss, as a result of
which animals that carry and transmit infectious pathogens are more
likely to feed on vertebrates than other species which are no longer
abundant. For example, forest fragmentation led to reduced diversity
https://www.jef.or.jp/journal/

Author Vesselin Popovski

of vertebrates and increased the abundance of generalist species
such as the white-footed mouse in North America, which has
become the primary reservoir of the bacteria causing Lyme disease.
On the opposite side, increased biodiversity improves human health,because of the “dilution effect” which reduces both the relative
density of animals that serve as natural reservoirs for pathogens andthe population density of pathogen vectors, resulting in fewer
encounters between vectors and the animals they infect. Somegovernments – Gabon, for example – banned the consumption ofbats and pangolins to stop the spread of zoonotic diseases. Others –Myanmar, for example – deregulated wildlife hunting and breeding,and this may create new zoonotic diseases. Poaching in Africa hasgone up for high-value products, such as rhino horn and ivory, yetanother negative impact.

Green Spaces
To avoid zoonotic diseases humans need to reduce contact withanimals and increase contact with the natural environment,
necessary for our physical and mental health. During the lockdowns
people re-discovered outdoor activities, enjoyed green parks, rivers,
lakes and forests, while adhering to the prescribed physical distanceand maximum outdoor meetings in groups. Science has longestablished that access to urban green areas has positive impacts on
health, typically due to improved air quality, increased physicalactivity, social cohesion and stress reduction. Interaction with nature
helps also to better recover from stress. Green cities not only
support human health, they are economical, improve air quality, andhelp reduce the “heat island effect” of increasing temperatures.
Green areas also reduce flood risks by allowing more water toinfiltrate into the soil during rain.
Humans can learn lessons from Covid-19 and (1) mitigate theunderlying drivers of zoonotic diseases, such as ecosystemdegradation and loss of biodiversity; (2) inspire more planting ofgreen spaces; and (3) boost community action to protect
ecosystems from further human incursions.
An interesting situation occurred in Pakistan, where theunemployment caused by Covid-19 facilitated the recruitment oflabor for a “Ten Billion Tree Tsunami Campaign” aimed at planting 10
billion trees – the estimated global annual net loss of trees – over the
next five years. Strengthening environmental regulations to protect
or restore green spaces will be vital. Experiencing nature outside
Japan SPOTLIGHT • November / December 202047

Special

Article 4

cities will maintain our health, but only if we can find a healthybalance between use of resources and protecting nature. The cost of
managing areas for biodiversity conservation and recreation is easier
to communicate, if the full range of benefits are considered,including the contribution they make to human health. A green
strategy to “build back better” after Covid-19 can support sustainable
development on many accounts, not only for mental and physicalwell-being, but also to ensure that multiple global goals, such ascombating climate change and reducing natural hazard risks, can beachieved.

Air Quality, Water, Fishery
Covid-19, and past pandemics too, show that reduced economic
activity helps decrease pollution, allowing the environment toflourish. The significant interruption of industrial activities and travelin year 2020 reduced air pollution. Mega cities like Beijing, Delhi andMumbai experienced unusually clear skies and fresh air, like neverbefore. When countries enforced lockdowns to contain Covid-19,
cities recorded significantly lower levels of nitrogen dioxide andsulfur dioxide, both harmful chemicals released by motor vehicles
and power plants. Cities with historically high particulate matter
concentration levels (PM2.5) also experienced a substantial
reduction in pollution. The decrease of shipping and boat travel
cleared not only the air, but also the water in rivers. Fish spread in
the Thames, Seine, Rhone, Danube and other big rivers in Europe,
almost doubling its biomass. In Venice for the first time ingenerations the canals were fully cleared and enjoyed greater waterflow (“As Italy quarantines over coronavirus, swans appear in Venicecanals, dolphins swim up playfully” by Anagha Srikanth, The Hill,
March 18, 2020). As people stayed home and reduced travel, sea
turtles started laying eggs on beaches they previously avoided, suchas the coast of the Bay of Bengal. With the increase of the availabilityof fish, their prices dropped (“Commercial fishing industry in free fall
as restaurants close, consumers hunker down and vessels tie up” by
Laura Reiley, The Washington Post, April 8, 2020).

Climate Change Impact
Before Covid-19 the best progress in implementing the 17
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) was recorded with regard to
the first two: eradicating extreme poverty and hunger. In contrast,
Goal 13 – climate action – was the worst in implementation, becauseof the purely voluntary character of the commitments in the Paris
Agreement and the withdrawal of the US from it. The expectation that48 Japan SPOTLIGHT • November / December 2020

Covid-19 can give states extra time to commit seriously to reducing
fossil fuel emissions, slowing down the rise in temperatures, themelting of glaciers and rising sea levels, did not materialize. The CO2
emissions dropped minimally, because of the reduced transport andindustrial activities during the lockdowns, but methane (a morepotent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide) emissions fromlivestock actually continued to rise. Research based on Google andApple mobility data, reflecting near-real-time travel and work
patterns, showed that Covid-19 lockdowns have a negligible impact
on climate change, and will cut global warming by just 0.01 C by
2030. Therefore, economy-wide changes are needed for a zeroemissions economy, such as green transport, renewable-energy
buildings, and capturing and burying CO2. In a recent newspaper
article, Keith Shine of the University of Reading was quoted asstating, “Because CO2 is so persistent in the atmosphere, short-termemission reductions resulting directly from the pandemic lockdowns
lead to undetectable reductions in warming. It is only via sustained
and radical changes in the way we use fossil fuels that we can hope
to meet the Paris climate agreement target.” (https://www.
theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/07/covid-19-lockdown-willhave-negligible-impact-on-climate-crisis-study). Piers Forster of the
University of Leeds thinks that with an economic recovery tilted
towards green stimulus and reductions in fossil fuels, we can avoid
future warming of 0.3 C by 2050. Jaise Kuriakose of the University ofManchester notes that people’s activities have changed in previously
unthinkable ways by shifting to virtual meetings, reducing air travel,
and this public willingness to change to a more sustainable and lowcarbon lifestyle should be coupled with structural changes and new
policies. Hopefully, long-term societal shifts, like teleconferences,
working from home, and traveling less may become the new normal
and have more impact on sustainability.The London-based think tank
Carbon Tracker suggests that the pandemic may produce theterminal decline of fossil fuels, predicting an annual 2% drop in
demand for oil and gas, and profit cuts from an estimated $39 trillion
to $14 trillion. It suggests accelerating the clean energy transition,and offering stimulus programs for renewable energy and climatefriendly projects to create direct green jobs across the world.
Estimates show that every $1 million spent on renewable energy andexports creates 4.8 full-time jobs in renewable infrastructure, while$1 million spent on fossil fuel projects would only create 1.7 fulltime jobs. Scientists also examined recovery scenarios: if therecovery mirrors the investments made after the 2008 financial crisis– which included major support for fossil fuels – the global
temperature will rise by more than 1.5 C by 2050, which will cause
widespread damage across the world. However, a strong green

Special

Article 4

recovery that invests 1.2% of global GDP in low-carbon technologies
and does not support bailouts for fossil fuel companies is likely to
cut warming by 0.3 C.
The pandemic also impacted the climate diplomacy, and the 2020
Climate Change Conference of Parties (COP) was postponed to 2021
after its venue was converted into a field hospital. This COP was
crucial as governments were scheduled to submit enhanced
nationally determined contributions to the Paris Agreement, and the
expectation is that they will not lower this priority during the
pandemic and still make ambitious commitments, even withoutpressure from the COP. The danger is that the restarting of industries
and transport following the lockdowns could contribute to increasing
greenhouse gas emissions. The economy should not be rebuilt bybuilding coal-fired power stations, not only because of the climate
but also because of the economy itself, as there will be negative cash
flows and stranded assets.

Plastics
Measures to curb the single-use of plastics and reduce theirenvironmental damage were already in place before Covid-19:
amendments were made to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
and to the 2019 Basel Convention on Control of Transboundary
Movements of Hazardous Waste. However, despite some recent
progress in plastic management, Covid-19 brought a drawback.
There has been a huge demand for Personal Protective Equipment(PPE), face masks and gloves, given their flexible non-porous natureand light weight, but because of the contagious character of the virus
these are all meant for single use and need to be disposed of,resulting in a significant return of single-use plastics into the market(https://earth.org/covid-19-surge-in-plastic-pollution/). In addition, aconsiderable increase in plastic usage is related also to more
packaging needed for various home deliveries, as these have skyrocketed during the Covid-19 pandemic. Collectively, the rise inplastic being used both in hospitals and households exacerbated the
problem, and a huge amount of it is daily discarded in theenvironment, adding to the worldwide burden of plastic waste.

Sustainable Healthcare
The healthcare sector utilizes not only a lot of single-use plastics,
but also causes a substantial share of the world’s CO2 emissions andair pollutants: 4.4% of greenhouse gases, 2.8% of harmful
particulate matter (air particles), 3.4% of nitrogen oxides and 3.6%of sulphur dioxide (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/

article/PIIS2542-5196(20)30121-2/fulltext). Currently the healthcare
sector causes environmental impacts that range between 1% and 5%of total global impacts, and contribute to more than 5% for someindicators at individual country level. Along with its contributions togreenhouse gases and air pollutants, healthcare uses 1.5% of the
scarce water in the world. As part of broader economic systems, thehealthcare sector can inadvertently harm nature through purchasing
scarce resources, the use and waste of plastics, and air pollution. We
cannot reduce the healthcare sector; in fact, we may need more of it.
Therefore this sector needs to become sustainable and environmentfriendly to protect and improve human health, and at the same time
not inflict environmental damage. It is important that societies,
including medical professionals, understand how their work relates
to nature, and how environmental stressors are performing overtime. There are good and bad examples: in South Korea healthcareinduced emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides andparticulate matter decreased from between 27% to 60% from 2000
till 2015, while in China these emissions increased by between 91%
and 173% in the same period. For some indicators, such as
greenhouse gas emissions and particulate matter, the majority ofdamage is hidden in upstream supply chains and unravelling thesewill help us understand the hotspots of environmental impacts, suchas pharmaceuticals and medical supplies.
The environmental impact of healthcare is both a practical andethical issue for medical professionals. In 2015 more than 460,000
premature deaths globally were related to coal combustion. Why
should any hospital purchase coal-fired energy when it produces
toxic air pollution that harms health? Some medical professionals
might be surprised at this additional responsibility, because they arebusy providing life-saving treatments and don’t have time to worry
about the pollution they cause. Some might say a global pandemic is
not the time to burden medical professionals with another
responsibility. Actually, it is the opposite – there is no better time toraise this issue, when the eyes of the world are on the healthcare
sector, and aim at achieving the change needed where the evidence
is clear and a collective will is shared.
Healthcare organizations at every level – national, regional,
hospital, primary care – should measure and track theirenvironmental footprint over time, as they do for health outcomes
and financial costs. Medical professionals – from doctors and nurses
to managers and members of hospital boards – should understandthe environmental footprint of their work and take steps to reduce it.
The purchasing power of the healthcare sector should be harnessedto drive sustainability transitions in other sectors. For example,
healthcare organizations purchase large amounts of food forJapan SPOTLIGHT • November / December 202049

Special

Article 4

hospitalized patients and the managers responsible for the
procurement should ensure that the food is healthy and produced ina sustainable way. Some healthcare organizations are already making
progress and civil society organizations like “Global Green” and“Healthy Hospitals” are reporting best practices.

Sustainable Public Transport
The use of public transport in cities worldwide has fallen by
50-90% during the pandemic, with substantial revenue losses forvarious operators. The recovery – as with the other sectors above –is to make transport sustainable and carbon-free. The pandemic isthe best time to move cities entirely into electric mobility andencourage cycling and walking. Many cities have already offered freebike renting, and organized and demarcated additional cycling andwalking paths along the roads, and these need to be continued longterm. The support packages from governments as a result of thepandemic could be invested in a rapid growth in battery andhydrogen technology, to illustrate the vulnerability of fossil fuels to
storage and distribution problems.
Other welcome developments are investments in heightened
hygienic practices on public transport, facemasks, appropriate social
distancing measures, and addressing various health concerns withpublic transport usage. By reforming the transport sector, the Covid19 pandemic can trigger various effects, including behavior changes,
more teleworking and teleconferencing, and other changes inbusiness models – which could, in turn, translate into reductions ofemissions and pollution from transport. One downside could be thatthe shift away from public transport because of Covid-19 may
increase the reliance on single-occupancy cars, which will increase
emissions. Therefore city planners have to create new cycle paths toaddress the challenge, and encourage electric mobility, bicycling andnatural walks.

Sustainable Stimulus Packages
The pandemic triggered stimulus packages, and these should bedesigned to speed up opening green spaces, renewable energy
transitions, reducing plastic waste, and investment in sustainablepublic transport as well as bicycling and walking facilities. However,with the spread of fears at the beginning of the pandemic, the focus
on the European Green Deal diminished, and some suggested either
a yearly pause or even a complete discontinuation of the Green Deal,arguing that the priority of the European Union’s current
policymaking process should be the immediate, short-term crisis
50 Japan SPOTLIGHT • November / December 2020

rather than climate change. This would have been a mistake andfortunately, in May 2020, the EU adopted a “Next Generation EU”,
seven-year €1 trillion budget proposal and €750 billion recovery
plan, with the Green Deal being part of it. One of the package’s
principles is “Do no harm”. Fossil fuels and nuclear power are
excluded from the funding – the money should be spent only on
projects that meet the green criteria. Some 25% of all funding will go
to climate change mitigation projects.
Many organizations, think tanks, companies, businesses, politicalbodies and research institutes – among them the International
Energy Agency, the Grantham Institute and the European
Commission – have published analyses and recommendations forinvestments and related measures for sustainability-oriented
socioeconomic recovery on global and national levels.
UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres recommended six broadsustainability-related principles for shaping the recovery. The
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
recommended governments to continue to enforce existing air
pollution regulations during Covid-19 and channel financial support
measures to public transport providers to enhance capacity andquality with a focus on reducing crowding and promoting cleaner
facilities. The next three years will determine the course of the next
30 years and beyond: if we do not take action we will surely see a
rebound in emissions, and these will be very difficult to control in
future. This is why urging governments to produce sustainable
recovery packages is the task of all civil society organizations
globally.

Conclusion
This article presented the impacts – both negative and positive –of Covid-19 on environment. But the argument is that even thenegative effects of the pandemic may have made a catastrophic
future seem less remote and action to prevent it more necessary.
However, it may also have the opposite consequence of having
minds focused on the more immediate threat of the pandemic rather
than on longer negative impacts on natural ecosystems. The fifth testof Covid-19 – the human relationship with nature – therefore willtake a longer time to assess and recover.

Vesselin Popovski is a professor and vice dean of the Jindal Global Law
School in India, where he teaches students, undertakes research and writes
books.