In the time of lockdown and due to unstable market situation, a lot of industries have/had stopped their activities, while some of them remain stop till now. Does it have any impact on environmental pollution activities?
Because of Covid -19, traffic reduces which has direct impact on env pollution. Most of the industrial units are also effected which in tern reduces air and water pollution.
From a plastic pollution point of view, I think that the COVID-19 pandemic and especially the excessive use and disposal of single-use PPEs are an important source of plastic pollution in the marine environment. Many news outlets and some scientific reports have evidenced the presence of PPEs, mostly masks, in coastal zones.
We recently published a focus article that goes into detail regarding the potential impacts of PPE, I invite you to check it here:
Article What we need to know about PPE associated with the COVID-19 ...
It definitely has an impact on Legionella growth and risk in building water systems. This is documented by many papers. Good ones are listed on my web page COVID and building water COVID-19 and Building Water Systems – https://legionellae.org/covid-19-and-building-water-systems/
It has impact on both ways. The degree of pollution on the environment due to burning of fossil fuel will be less due to the "work from home" activities in many places, but the sewer discharge containing coronavirus from commercialized/industrial areas including hospitals will be more polluted due to large number of COVID-19 patients. The wastewater treatment plants are stressed to keep up the removal efficiency of the constituents present in the influent and attain compliance with the regulatory requirements. This is acute due to sewer overflows in the combined sewer areas where stormwater system could be polluted due to flooding. The climate has shown the sign of improvements. Of course, the impact due to COVID 19 on climate is not imminent as it takes longer time to respond in terms of changes. Disposal of masks and PPE equipment have caused enormous problem on the loadings of plastics. The recycling areas are not designed to treat such a huge influx of plastics in recent times. This is causing environmental pollution problem in the watershed.
With a lot of covid around, there is less human activities, therefore, less pollution. However, the pollution that was there before is still there. The oceans are still warm and very active and bring powerful storms and hurricanes. We are not getting better pollution-wise.
Pandemic has very negligible role in minimizing the env pollution , just after lockdown development and vehicular activities started vigorously. Please check Emission Gap Report 2020 by UNEP.
In a very recent paper by Hiemstra et al., photographic evidence of fish and bird entanglement with a glove and face mask, respectively, was presented. Also, face masks and gloves were incorporated to a bird's nest.
Here's the link: Article The effects of COVID-19 litter on animal life
If the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) pandemic caused a decrease in economic activity and demand for energy resources (in the field of classic energy based on the combustion of fossil fuels), then on a similar scale there should be a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions and a decrease in waste emissions and environmental pollution natural. A significant decline in the economic activity of many enterprises took place during the 1st wave of the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic, i.e. when the deepest economic recession occurred in the second quarter of 2020. On the other hand, during a pandemic, a lot of waste related to the use of anti-pandemic safety instruments, such as used protective masks, rubber gloves, syringes used during vaccination programs of citizens, etc., could have been released to the environment. year there are numerous data showing the improvement of the condition of natural ecosystems in many parts of the world. An interesting issue is the appearance of a real winter with frost and snow in some parts of the temperate climate zone, where there has been no such natural, real winter for many years. However, climatologists do not indicate a strong correlation in this matter only with the winter solstice in a multi-year cycle that takes place on a decade scale.
Environmental pollution are many-fold. For example, air pollution? Yes, it decreased considerably, particularly in the urban areas. Water pollution? Largely Yes, it decreased but if we think in terms of pollution from the plastics use, I doubt if it decreased considerably. Sediment pollution? Yes, if we think the source of pollution is from the automobile discharges and from the air and water. Climatic impact is a very difficult to assess since the impact should be considered in longer time scale, not in a few year period. There are many other environmental factors could be considered in terms of commenting on the impact of COVID-19.
In general environmental pollution will decrease; for example many people work from home (less use for cars) so less pollution also less production from factories that can cause environmental pollution for both air and water
On a tangential but related note indoor air quality as environmental pollution has received a lot of attention. Air exchanges, air filtration and relative humidity are now being considered more closely because of COVID. More air exchanges will increase energy demand somewhat. Disinfecting air with UV and other controls could lead to better air quality with lower energy costs. Lots of changes in this area are going on now.
Our initial data confirms the presence of PPEs in the marine environment here in the Philippines. So basically, COVID 19 has added a new type of marine litter that was absent before the pandemic.
In general, lockdown is a positive sign for our environment. Due to the pandemic lockdown, environmental pollution such as air pollution, water pollution has considerably decreased.
Lack of industrial activities have surely, affected the pollution air levels worldwide. However, the pandemic has given rise to another form of pollution attributable to personal protective equipment (PPE). As most of the PPEs are made out of plastics, they can get fragmented to microplastics. Some, such as facemasks, can directly release microplastic fibers to various aquatic environments. Here is a paper that discussed the aforementioned phenomenon.
Unfortunately, only during the deep recession that occurred during the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic in March - May 2020, there was a significant decrease in environmental pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. This decline occurred only in some regions and urban agglomerations and was relatively short-lived. Due to the fact that the decrease in the level of environmental pollution and greenhouse gas emissions was not large, it lasted only during the first wave of the pandemic, so the impact on climate change on the progressing global warming process was negligible. The global warming process has not been significantly slowed down or reduced. On the other hand, a significant decrease in the level of environmental pollution and greenhouse gas emissions may take place from 2021 in connection with an increase in the level of general social awareness of the pro-environmental, increase in the scale of implementation of sustainable development goals by institutions and enterprises, increasing expenditure from the state public finance system on the development of interventionist programs for the implementation of pro-environmental reforms , including the pro-environmental transformation of the energy sector, etc., which may be an indirect derivative of a pandemic, and more specifically a derivative of the development of systemic, institutional, interventionist crisis management programs coordinated by public and central states, pandemic risk management, anti-pandemic security systems and institutional resolution of other serious social and economic crises, natural disasters, etc. Therefore, the direct impact of the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic on the issue of The level of environmental pollution was noticeable, but it was only a negligible impact. On the other hand, a much greater impact may appear as a secondary, indirect effect, if the pandemic causes an increase in the general social awareness of citizens. It may also be a derivative of people's growing interest in a healthy lifestyle, including healthy eating and taking care of the environment in which we live. The increased interest in a healthy lifestyle is related to the need to strengthen the general resistance of the body to various negative environmental factors, including abiotic factors (e.g. more frequent weather changes and climatic anomalies) and biotic factors (viruses, bacteria, fungi, parasites, etc.). Therefore, people are increasingly interested in a healthy lifestyle, including taking care of the environment in which we live, i.e. primarily the state of the natural environment. A derivative of this issue is the increased interest in the implementation of the goals of sustainable development and the pro-ecological transformation of the classic economy into a sustainable, green circular economy. As part of the implementation of the objectives and the pro-environmental transformation of the economy, the pro-ecological transformation of the energy sector is also carried out, the development of renewable energy sources, the development of electromobility, the improvement of waste segregation and recycling systems, the development of sustainable ecological agriculture, the development of green areas in urban agglomerations, the creation of flower meadows, and the improvement of saving systems drinking water, development of rainwater catching and storage systems, improvement of nature protection systems, protection of biodiversity of natural ecosystems, protection of the biosphere and climate of the planet Earth. If a pandemic indirectly causes an increase in the development of environmental policy, an increase in expenditure on interventionist economic undertakings financed from the state finance system and pro-environmental undertakings carried out by commercially operating companies and enterprises, a significant increase in pro-environmental public awareness, it will be one of the key positive effects of the pandemic. If this happens, the condition of the natural environment may significantly improve in the coming years.
Dear Muhammad Anwar Iqbal this is certainly an important question of ongoing general interest. One obvious negative effect of the corona pandemic which can be seem everywhere is the huge number of discarded face masks which are polluting the environment and more and more the oceans. For a typical article in which this proble is highlighted please have a look at the following link:
1.6 Billion Disposable Masks Entered Our Oceans in 2020
More than eight million tonnes of pandemic-associated plastic waste have been generated globally, with more than 25,000 tons entering the global ocean. This poses a long-lasting problem for the ocean environment and is mainly accumulated on beaches and coastal sediments.
Coronavirus waste has become a new form of pollution as single-use personal protective equipment (PPE) floods our ocean.
The global disruption caused by the COVID-19 has brought about several effects on the environment and climate. Due to movement restriction and a significant slowdown of social and economic activities, air quality has improved in many cities with a reduction in water pollution in different parts of the world.
There are two side of Covid 19 impact on environmental pollution:
Side 1: Due to covid 19 impact many countries have adopted full lock down for several days since January 2020- January 2022. In these two years during complete lock down of cities, the air pollution decrease due to less traffic and human movement, which is the positive side of pandemic.
Side 2: Covid 19 pandemic cause several tons of single micro plastic byproducts (face mask, face shield, PPE kit, medicine bottles etc. ) which imposes serious issue of plastic pollution in oceans, coastal areas and damping grounds.