Does the COVID-19 Pandemic really help bring back natural wildlife?

Does the COVID-19 Pandemic really help bring back natural wildlife?

Arnav Sama

With the extensive media coverage of COVID-19's spread across the world, orders for quarantine and lockdown has grown. Many populated tourist areas and rural towns have witnessed an increase in natural wildlife. This common occurrence across the world is sometimes distorted for the media's liking. So, when facing the question of whether COVID-19's Pandemic really supports the growth of wildlife in areas where humans have presence may be true, but not to the extent we may believe to. 

As we all know Italy has been suffering quite a bit under the effects of government-enforced lockdown and the virus itself, however, as the saying goes "every cloud has a silver lining", that is the wildlife's return to Venice, Italy water canals. With news of Italy's lockdown, tweets of Venice's canals showing clear water and new wildlife surfaced and shocked the world. These tweets showed swans, fish, and dolphins returning to the bodies of water surrounding Venice due to the decrease in boat activity. However, this is not all true. Indeed the waterways became clearer due to the decreased boat activity, but the presence of swans, fish, and dolphins was exaggerated. The prevalence of swans and fish had no change as the pictures taken of swans and fish were staged at areas that are known to have larger populations of the wildlife. On the other hand, it was discovered by Paulo Ordoveza, an image verification expert that the images of the dolphins in Venice were taken in Sardinia, a Mediterranean Island. All in all, the claimed wildlife return in Venice was just exaggeration by the media to give hope to people facing COVID-19.

On the contrary, the interest in whether the COVID-19 Pandemic help bring back wildlife was found noticeably true in Thailand, Japan, and Wales. To begin, in Thailand a mob of macaques, a primate, were found fighting for food in a city plaza due to the decrease in tourist activity. This decrease in tourist activity is responsible for a decrease in available food for these primates because of the abundance of tourists feeding wildlife in nearby ancient temples in forests. With the restrictions of international flights, Thailand has seen a massive drop in tourism, therefore, forcing these macaques into cities in search of food. A similar occurrence was found in Japan where the popular Nara Park, which hosts a large deer population, offers rice crackers for tourists to feed the deer also saw a decrease in tourism and so deer have been found to leave Nara park and wander the streets of a nearby city in search of food. Likewise, in a small town in northern Wales, wild goats left nearby hills and proceeded to take over the town with the sight of no humans and empty roads. Ultimately, the Pandemic seems to allow nearby wildlife to takeover empty streets that are usually taken up by human activity and not actually helping wildlife population growth.


The rapid spread of COVID-19 quickly flooded all sources of media with news of government lockdowns and quarantines. Ever since, locals of cities around the world have witnessed the rise of wildlife in cities with a drop in human activity. Now confronted with the question of whether the COVID-19 Pandemic really helped bring back natural wildlife, the answer is simple. Wildlife goes where humans activity is not.

Questions:
1) Have you seen an increase in natural wildlife near where you live?
2) Do you think there will be any long term effects on wildlife from ongoing lockdowns?
3) How long do you think wildlife will stay in cities after lockdowns end?

Works Cited:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2020/03/coronavirus-pandemic-fake-animal-viral-social-media-posts/
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/science/hungry-monkeys-deer-coronavirus.html
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/31/europe/wild-goats-wales-streets-lockdown-scli-gbr/index.html

The Effects of Fashion on Our Planet

The Effects of Fashion on Our Planet

By: Jack Ryon

In dark days such as these, we often look to beacons of hope to help redirect our eyes to the positivities in the world. One of these postivities can be the fashion industry, but of course, like pretty much everything, the fashion industry is a strong force in hurting the environment. I mean at this point nothing is sacred, I feel bad eating steak, I feel bad driving my car, and now I even feel bad wearing clothes. At this point, we should all become naked vegetarians that ride bikes, and not just San Francisco. But I digress, the fashion industry is currently a silent killer, and we need to be more aware of the harm that it’s currently doing to the environment.

You may be asking yourself, “but really, how can the fashion industry be that harmful”, well, allow me to now thrill you with the power of statistical word vomit. People on average bought 60% more pieces of clothing in 2014 than they did in 2000 however, the pieces were only kept for half as long. On top of that, the UNEA stated that the fashion industry is responsible for 20% of global wastewater, 10% of global carbon emissions, and textile dyeing is the second largest polluter of global water. Scientists also predict that by 2050 the fashion industry alone will use up a quarter of the world’s carbon budget. I mean let’s be honest, how do none of us know about this? In my opinion, I think that clothes are art, and humanity should protect any medium that is used to express yourself. However, we should be careful to not be too wasteful. Like pretty much everything (except probably heroin), clothing cannot be that harmful in moderation. I’m not advocating to not buy clothes at all (although it would be hilarious), In fact, I’m very pro fashion, but by stopping the ignorance of the general public towards the environmental harms of the industry, we can begin to make change. Most of us are familiar with the statistic that one one pound of meat takes 2,400 gallons of water to create. However, next to none of us are familiar with the statistic that it takes 2,000 gallons of water to make a pair of jeans. This is just an example of what I'm talking about, we should try to inform people of just how wasteful we are with the creation of our clothing. That way we can actually do something about it.

The solution for this issue is not perfectly clear cut though. To further examine why, allow me to compare the fundamental difference between two industries. Our first industry will be the meat industry, the meat industry is incredibly harmful to the environment, but we all more or less have a sense on how to solve the problem. In order to solve the problem, a fundamental change in culture must take place towards our reliance on meat in our diets. There are probably other solutions that are more effective, but I’m simply using the comparison to demonstrate the complexity of the issue. Anyways, the meat industry doesn’t necessarily have to innovate, yes the methods used to actually create the meat must innovate, but meat cannot be innovated because meat is simply meat. The problem with the fashion industry is that it must continuously be innovated since it is art. The problem with it being art is that in order to compete with other companies, you have to keep producing as many pieces of clothing as possible. That is why the issue is so complex, you can’t stop producing clothes or else the industry would take a massive hit. So what exactly is the solution? Well the solution is to create more sustainable clothing. There are many companies that are leading an effort to create sustainable versions of clothing (Ecoalf, Queen of Raw, Novel Supply, Etc.). This of course will be very hard since we will have to create a shift in culture where we make clothes that are made of sustainable material mainstream. I personally think that this is a much easier task than switching people’s diets. Not to stereotype, but I can’t imagine that the overly masculine men with strong opinions on meat also share very strong opinions on clothing.

The fashion industry needs to be more talked about as a harmful force in the environment. If all of us become aware of the harm it’s doing (I specify in the second paragraph because let’s be honest you’re just reading this and then answering the questions.) then we can begin to create change. Hopefully we can help to remedy the effects that the fashion industry is leaving on our planet. Again I’m very pro art, but I think we should try to regulate the fashion industry more because anything that is as harmful as it is should be regulated.

• Why do you think that more people aren't aware of the environmental impacts of the fashion industry?
• Do you think the sustainable clothing material is a solution?
• Do you think that there are other solutions to the impact of the fashion industry?

• https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/press-release/un-alliance-sustainable-fashion-addresses-damage-fast-fashion
• https://www.businessinsider.com/fast-fashion-environmental-impact-pollution-emissions-waste-water-2019-10
• https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/03/books/review/how-fast-fashion-is-destroying-the-planet.html

How COVID-19 Affects the Environment

Saee Risbud

I decided to write about current events, and what could be more current than this? The coronavirus has had a far reaching impact on our lives and has hurt many people around the world. Not only has it affected people, businesses, companies, the economy, travel, healthcare systems, and so much more, but it actually has had a surprising effect on the environment as well. First, I'll explain the role of any virus in the environment, according to The Conservation. A virus is an infectious agent that can exist outside of a living agent (people, animals) in particles "too small to be seen with some microscopes." Different environments can affect different viruses, and each virus responds to the environment differently. 

COVID-19

The Conservation says that the environment has played a key role in previous disease outbreaks, although coronavirus is not as well studied, therefore nobody truly knows what its impact it. However, scientists do know that certain environments are pathogen carriers, and that different environments affect the way viruses survive outside of living hosts. Previous strains of the coronavirus have been known to survive on metal, glass, plastic, and one strain even could survive in the air for two weeks. This is why it is important to clean frequently used surfaces. 

Empty highway during outbreak

According to Scientific American, the shutdown that has been going on in many countries can also reduce carbon/greenhouse gas emissions. Falling oil production and decreased air travel means that in China, it is “25% lower than normal.” The article also says that this has been a repeated trend in history (carbon emissions dipped after 2008) and is not very surprising. However, this is not necessarily clear cut, so while people are driving/using public transport less, the effects are not fully clear at this point in time. This is because people could be using more energy at home, or when this pandemic ends, factories will overproduce to compensate. NASA’s Earth Observatory says that in China, NO2 concentrations have decreased, but that does not mean that the air is clean. And while carbon emissions are down, there is no telling how much it has actually benefitted the environment.

Image from NASA’s Earth Observatory 

Personally, I think that COVID-19 has had impacts that we are not aware of, and that the world was ill prepared for such a pandemic. The scientific community is scrambling to make sense of the virus, and while they have made tremendous progress in a short amount of time, it is still too new and its rapid spread means that countries are scrambling for short term solutions that can protect people. Much more research is needed to truly understand its effects on the environment, and whether they are short or long term. Of course, the coronavirus has much more immediate and pressing concerns and the main priority is saving lives, so concerns about the environment are not getting countries' full attention. However, the environment will be affected in one way or another, and only time will tell how.

Questions:

• Do you think the coronavirus will have more positive effects on the environment or more negative effects?
• What are some other potential effects the coronavirus will have on the environment that you can think of?
• How severe of an impact do you think the coronavirus will have on air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-coronavirus-pandemic-is-affecting-co2-emissions/

http://theconversation.com/plans-to-fight-coronavirus-must-pay-attention-to-the-environment-132520

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/2020/03/05/how-the-coronavirus-is-and-is-not-affecting-the-environment/

Are Zoos Really Helpful in Wildlife Conservation?

   Are Zoos Really Helpful in Wildlife Conservation? 

By:Lasya Reddy

As a child, I loved going to the zoo. It was always my number one choice for our family trips. As I walked past the cute monkeys and tall giraffes my face lit up with joy. I was astonished by the vast selection of animals from different parts of the world in one contained area. However, as I grew older I realized the zoo wasn’t what it cracked up to be. Recently, on a trip to the zoo, I understood that life in the zoo wasn’t luxurious or promising. The animals seemed to be sad and lonely in their small environments leaving me to question if zoos were really a safe haven for animals. 

Keeping animals away from their natural habitats is morally wrong. Animals may not have enough room to sufficiently move around leading to a deprivation of their natural desires. For example, Sea World has stopped doing its whale shows due to a previous mishap. Tilikum, a whale brought to SeaWorld, was brought into captivity when he was only two. However, during a whale show, Tilikum pulled his trainer down into the pool drowning her. Audiences and people around the world were shocked to see how a “trained” animal could do such a horrible thing. Wild animals shouldn’t be kept in pens to perform for tourists in the first place. They shouldn't be tamed for being wild because their natural instinct is to be out in the open and do anything for the means of survival.

Wildlife sanctuaries are a much better option for animals as opposed to zoos. The primary definition of sanctuaries is to take care of any animal that has been abused, neglected, or abandoned. Sanctuaries offer a private life to animals as opposed to zoos where the animals are put out as a show for the enjoyment of the public. Zoos often take in animals whether they need to be saved or not but sanctuaries only rescue animals that need help. Moreover, it was found that only 18% of the animals at zoos were endangered or threatened.  Therefore, we should increase the number of sanctuaries present and decrease the number of zoos. 

 

Humans can raise awareness and make zoos better for animals. For example, we can make a more strategic plan to conserve the wildlife without depriving it of its natural habitat. Zoos can also incorporate more endangered species into their zoos to prevent the complete extinction of specific species. While zoos may be a fun place to enjoy the animals, take a step back and envision what it feels like to be an animal stuck in a confined area.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/03/150329-orca-blackfish-seaworld-dolphins-killer-whales-ngbooktalk/

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/3/140320-animal-sanctuary-wildlife-exotic-tiger-zoo/

https://www.peta.org/features/zoo-conservation-captive-breeding/

https://www.theguardian.com/science/lost-worlds/2014/aug/19/why-zoos-are-good

Do you think zoos are a safe place for wildlife conservation?

How can we make zoos a better place for the animals?

Conversely, what are some benefits zoos provide?

Fracking- The dilemma of planet or industry
By Phoenix Quintanilla  

Fracking is the process of creating fractures in rocks using hydraulic fluids and water in order to extract oil. This practice has become one of the most talked about methods in the fossil fuel industry due to its severe and numerous environmental impacts. A major environmental impact of fracking is the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. A common chemical used in fracking is methane, and during the fracking process around 4% of the methane used is released into the atmosphere creating air pollution and furthering the effects of global warming. In addition to air pollution fracking also has far reaching impacts on human access to clean water. Fracking often requires millions of gallons of water in order to extract the oil which reduces the availability of clean water. To further add on to the list of issues 40% of the water returned to the surface comes back contaminated by chemicals leading to the pollution of water in lakes and rivers. The severity of the pollution caused by fracking will create long lasting negative effects on the environment if more of an effort is not done to reduce its effects.

So with all the negative effects that fracking creates for the environment we should just stop doing it right, well that’s where things get complicated. While fracking does harm the environment it also does a great deal for the oil industry and the economy. Fracking has a lower energy cost due to it being able to obtain oil on a local level, thus lowering the energy cost it would have taken in order to import across the globe. The fracking industry has also provided numerous people with jobs. In 2012 it was reported that fracking provided 1.2 million people with jobs in the United States. With the pros of fracking taken into mind the dilemma becomes obvious, is the health of the environment worth terminating over a million jobs and increasing energy costs importing oil? 

Ideally the best way to solve the fracking issue would be to find an alternative source of energy. This is where renewable energy comes into play. Renew eagle energy such as solar and wind power can reduce air pollution and produce no greenhouse gases of their own. In addition to this putting more efforts into renewable energy would also create more jobs as the industry continues to grow. The only issue with sustainable energy right now is that installing it can be expensive, often more so than fossil fuels. 

Personally I feel that switching to sustainable energy sources on an individual level is the best way to help reduce the harmful effects of fracking. Simply getting solar panels installed is a great first step to switching from fossil fuels to sustainable energy. Not only does this help reduce levels of air and water pollution but it also helps enlarge the sustainable energy industry, thus creating a need for more jobs producing forms of energy.

Questions:

1.) What do you think the best approach is to end fracking?

2.) Why might companies choose to continue with fracking while knowing that sustainable energy sources exist?

3.) What are your thoughts on sustainable forms of energy and their growing potential?

Sources:

https://www.epa.gov/statelocalenergy/local-renewable-energy-benefits-and-resources

https://greengarageblog.org/list-of-top-9-pros-and-cons-of-fracking

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/011915/what-are-effects-fracking-environment.asp

The True Environmental Impact of Electrical Vehicles-Ishaan Phatak

      With global warming emerging as a global crisis, policymakers and people around the world are searching for answers. When analyzing the list of what exactly is responsible for high amounts of carbon emissions, cars and trucks are towards the top. In the United States, cars and trucks account for one-fifth of all US emissions making it the largest contributor to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. With this in mind, people often look towards electric cars to solve this problem. With Tesla leading the way and other companies following along, a future with affordable electric vehicles is looking increasingly realistic. Electric cars are often advertised to be perfectly clean and have little to no impact on the environment. While they are much more environmentally friendly than their
combustion engine counterparts, it is important to understand their true environmental impact.

        As we watch the news, we all see the headlines that show electric cars as the future and that with no carbon emissions they are perfect for the environment. This all seems too good to be true, and when exploring exactly how electric cars are manufactured, its true environmental impact can be seen. The argument against electric cars is centered around the production of its batteries. The extraction and manipulation of the large array of rare earth metals contribute to carbon emissions. Studies conducted by ICTT have shown that Chinese EV(Electric Vehicles) battery manufacturers produce up to 60% more CO2 during fabrication than ICEV(Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle) engine production. Although the pollution of the extraction and manufacturing of EV batteries is greater than ICEV vehicles, different manufacturing processes will help decrease this pollution greatly over time. Despite producing more emissions during its manufacturing process, the lifetime pollution of electric cars is much less than that of ICEV vehicles. 

      Personally, I believe that electric cars are the future of transportation and that the negatives of its manufacturing are completely outweighed by its positives in the long run. With little to no emissions, ICEVs are no match for electric cars. Moreover, as the production of electric vehicles becomes more mainstream, battery recycling will become more prevalent and will reduce the need to extract new materials. As companies become more efficient with the manufacturing process, EVs will be responsible for extremely low carbon emissions.

       In addition to having an efficient manufacturing process in the future, electric cars will also become more affordable as well. The prices of electric cars have been decreasing by a substantial amount over the last couple of years. Because of the affordability of these cars, many people along with my family look to consider buying an electric car in the near future. Overall, it is clear that although the manufacturing of electric cars has some negative environmental impacts, its environmental benefits, in the long run, make it the future of transportation.


Questions
1. Do you think that electric vehicles are the future of transportation
2. Do you think electric cars have more negative or positive impacts on the environment?
3. Would you consider buying an electric car in the future?

Sources:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/05/20/are-electric-vehicles-really-better-for-the-environment/

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2018/05/15/are-electric-cars-worse-for-the-environment-000660     

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/25/are-electric-vehicles-really-so-climate-friendly