Environmental Issues During COVID-19

Over the past year, the world has been grappling tirelessly with COVID-19 and has been leaving little room to discuss a much bigger threat. Climate-fueled disasters are currently the number one driver for internal displacement, where 20 million citizens are displaced annually. With temperatures rising and populations increasing, one third of the projected global population could be placed in “unlivable” conditions by 2070. These new conditions could have an untold rippling effect on our health, food security, and economic growth. Understanding that this issue can’t be ignored any longer, a coalition between members of the scientific community, the private sector, and heads of state will meet at the world’s first Climate Adaptation Summit on January 25^th. Projects like the zero-carbon housing initiative will be discussed and experts will provide evidence on the pandemic’s strong ties with environmental issues. Population density, deforestation, global travel, and large-scale farming has disrupted animal habitats. This brings animal species closer to humans and raises the risk of more frequent zoonotic disease outbreaks, which creates a higher chance of future pandemics. I reached out to Lauren Bruckler, the Owner and Vice President of OPX Group, a consulting firm specializing in improving the efficiency and productivity of business in the supply chain and wholesale distribution industry. Lauren is an Environmental, Health, & Safety Consultant with an extensive background in sustainability, policy development, regulatory compliance, and green construction. Her previous experience includes positions within the EPA, higher education, and independent consultancy services. As a Specialist in Safety & Health and a LEED Accredited Professional, Lauren combines her knowledge and experience to provide recommendations and develop programs and policies that are synergistic, addressing issues related to health, safety, and sustainability.

Carbon Tracker, a financial think tank, has reported that a 2% annual decline in fossil fuel demand will drop profits from $39tn to $14tn for oil, gas, and coal companies globally. ExxonMobil and Chevron warn that a declining oil price will have rippling effects throughout the economy. In a political climate where employment trumps environment, can you explain the economic benefits and arguments towards renewable energy?

There is definitely a lot to this question! In short, we’ve already seen a tremendous amount of success in renewable energy in the US and we typically rank within the top 10 of global renewable energy producers. A significant benefit of renewable energy is the creation of new jobs across all disciplines – engineering, manufacturing, research, sales, installation, etc. As prices for renewables continue to improve, I think we can anticipate this job sector to grow. Beyond jobs, renewables contribute to economic independence and strengthen national security efforts. However, we are far away from eliminating the need for fossil fuels in the economy, and subsequently jobs that depend on the availability of fossil fuels, both directly and indirectly. A good way to understand the complexities of renewables and economy is to analyze energy use by source and sector. A lot can be learned by data collected by the US Energy Information Administration.

In 2019, 37% of the national energy source was derived from petroleum, 70% of which went directly to the transportation sector. The next leading sector to use petroleum was industry, at 24%. Therefore, 94% of the petroleum used in the US goes to the transportation and industry sectors. The amount of jobs, goods, and services that dependend on these two sectors is tremendous. Currently, not all industry can operate on renewables, either because of availability or the sheer amount of energy needed for certain industry to operate. For example, a recent Forbes article highlighted some of the hidden necessities that petroleum has accounted for in relation to the pandemic, notably the plastics industry that produces single-use syringes for the vaccine as well as the industrial refrigeration equipment needed to store the vaccine at sub-zero temperatures. Such requirement cannot currently be met with renewables.

Compared to petroleum, natural gas accounts for 32% of the nation’s energy source and is the most diversified, with 33% contributing to industry, 27% powering residential and commercial space, and 36% going to the electric power sector. Comparatively, renewable energy and coal, both of which account for 11% of the total US energy source, primarily supply energy to the electric power sector. A total of 56% of renewable sources and 90% of coal sources are directed at the electric power sector. Importantly, a significant amount of source energy is lost by the electric power sector itself as compared to the amount of electricity for sale. Electric power supplies 90% of the energy needed by the residential and commercial sectors.

Based solely on these energy source percentages, there is opportunity to expand renewables and increase their overall contribution to the electric power grid or have direct application for residential and commercial use. Improvements in electricity transportation and distribution, as well as electricity storage solutions, will help make renewables more feasible and increase their influence throughout the economy. In terms of regulations, municipalities are expanding permitting options for renewables and some jurisdictions are requiring renewables for all new construction projects. Undoubtedly, all of these efforts will help increase jobs opportunities in the renewables sector.

The Moovit Public Transit Index reports that a list of 12 U.S cities had an average 59% decline in public transit passengers during the last week of December. Do you see an increase in automobiles after this pandemic, what degree do they contribute to carbon emissions, and is there anything that can be done to stop a surge in new cars? 

It will definitely be interesting to see what long-term impacts the pandemic has on public transportation and personal automobiles. Overall, 2020 saw a decline in the auto industry, as retail sales plummeted due to lockdowns, quarantines, and a shift to remote work. Similarly, fleets were impacted, as ridership declined and auto production plants closed. However, unlike fleet inventory, personal automobile sales did rebound. I think some of this is due to individuals choosing personal transit for health and safety reasons and opting for auto travel as compared to air travel. As the industry gets back on its feet, there will be greater demand for personal automobiles, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. For example, despite the overall slump in the auto industry, the sale of electric vehicles grew in 2020. Factors that affect the continued growth of the EV market include the availability of the charging network, affordability, and raw materials for battery production. And, as technology and infrastructure improve for the EV market I think there is great potential for this to cross-pollinate with the renewables market – just look at all that Tesla has done in recent years. 

As for carbon emissions, personal and light-duty vehicles represent approximately 60% of all transportation related emissions in the United States, which account for 28% of all GHG emissions across all sectors. It will take some time to collect and fully assess GHG data in relation to the pandemic, but it will be interesting to see what trends emerge. Overall, I think there will be less traditional commuting, as remote work becomes more normalized. That being said, I do think there will be an increase in personal or light-duty automobile usage related to the supply chain. The demand for home delivery increased exponentially in 2020, with companies like Amazon and DoorDash seeing record profits. As retailers expand delivery options we may see changes in overall emissions and the expansion of electric light-duty fleets.

Satellite images documented between Jan. 21st and April 25th highlight that over 5 square miles were illegal deforested in the Amazon Rainforest. Ives, a resident of Botswana, has stated that “poachers have been emboldened because the playing field is in their favor”. Why has the pandemic encouraged criminals to increase environmental operations and do they operate with impunity?

If there is opportunity for individuals to easily benefit from illegal activity, then they will engage in illegal activity. The pandemic shifted the focus for many countries that deal with sustained threats of environmental crimes. Those who monitor land and animal welfare were needed elsewhere or did not have the resources and financial support to carry out their responsibilities. Additionally, a watchful or concerned public was quarantined. It created a perfect opportunity for criminal activity. As the world adapts to the pandemic and the threat of COVID-19 lessens, the ease at which criminals can engage in illegal activity will also weaken.

Unfortunately, the pandemic has resulted in other environmental burdens, notably pollution. Consistently, we are seeing more and more images of discarded PPE littering communities, parks, and even beaches. Careless disposal or blatant disregard for PPE and medical waste is resulting in a pollution problem that we will be dealing with for years, especially if PPE becomes a more permanent feature.

On June 4^th, President Trump issued an executive order suspending the requirement for different environmental review processes on new mines, pipelines, highways, and other infrastructure projects. How optimistic are you for a Biden presidency and is there any environmental legislation pieces that you think could appear in the next four years?

Overall I think it is prudent for both the executive and legislative branches to ensure policy, regulations, and their application remain relevant and effective. That’s part of the fiduciary responsibility of the government agencies and a key role of Cabinet members who oversee such agencies. A majority of environmental legislation was passed half a century ago. Since then there have been many advances in environmental assessment and review and an exponential expansion of private firms, professionals, and third-party agencies dedicated to the environmental review and permitting process. Ensuring policy and regulation account for such advances and reflect the capabilities of private industry is a benefit for government agencies (federal, state, and local), private industry, and taxpayers.

Interestingly, in 2018, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) announced a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Update to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act.” This was in response to a 2017 executive order that sought to improve efficiencies, streamline operations, and enhance interdependence amongst government agencies. Among its findings, the Council on Environmental Quality determined that 60% of federal highway projects alone take more than 6 years for environmental review. Additionally, the National Environmental Policy Act review process takes an average of 4 years and often resulted in unnecessary litigation that increased overall project costs and kept projects delayed in the courts. So, given the economic crisis resulting from the pandemic, it is not surprising that an administration would issue an executive order that gave Agency directors the opportunity to advance federal infrastructure projects that were proposed and undergoing the environmental review process. This would help secure jobs and invest in industry and manufacturing at a time when economic security was immensely needed. The June 4th executive order was issued while the Council on Environmental Quality was going through the final rulemaking update, which was finalized September 2019.

More broadly, every administration since Nixon has seen the development and/or implementation of environmental legislation and policy, either through laws (including executive orders), acts, or administrative environmental regulations. Some legislative sessions have been more active than others and some policies have been more internationally focused rather than domestic. So much momentum has already been achieved in regard to environmental protection and awareness in the last 50 years. Unfortunately, the majority of what the public hears related to environmentalism or sustainability happens at such a high level, either through significant legislation, executive orders, international climate summits, or controversial projects, such as the Keystone XL Pipeline.  Yet a significant portion of environmental “wins” and progress remains hidden in the background or happen so incrementally that it is hard to discern their impact on the larger goal.  Additionally, the market adaptation to environmental legislation and the various ripple effect that has throughout the economy rarely get as much attention. Ever since Brundtland, private industry has taken a major role in sustainability and environmental innovation, in part because of consumer consciousness. I don’t foresee that changing any time soon and legislation is likely to follow and respond to environmental innovation rather than solely shape it.

Experts have noticed China’s experience with COVID-19 and reported on the potential concerns for a “rebound effect”. Huge air quality improvements were noticed in February and March, but pollution returned to pre-coronavirus levels as factories tried to make up for lost time. Is there any industry that you predict will have the biggest rebound effect and the smallest rebound effect in a post-covid climate?

It’s likely we’ll see a rebound across most industries that will result in pre-COVID emission levels. I think transportation will have the biggest rebound effect. Not only will air travel resume but the expansion of the supply chain will remain, as home delivery becomes standard. I think the smallest rebound effect will be seen in hospitality. Many of the COVID policies remain in effect across the industry. For example, housekeeping services have been reduced, occupancy rates have been reduced, and amenities that were typically standard have yet to return. All of this means there is less waste and pollution. Factors that could change this include the rise in business and leisure travel as well as COVID protocols across cities and states. Travelers are more likely to book trips as cities ease pandemic restrictions on dining and entertainment. It’s good to remember though that one of the most impactful outcomes from the pandemic was the improvement to air quality and overall reduction in air and water pollution that was seen across the globe in Spring of 2020. We heard inspirational stories of aquatic life improving and songbirds returning, and we saw satellite images from the space station that showed major cities and urban regions emerging from a veil of smog. Despite how short-lived it may be, the global reduction in economic activity showed just how impactful human activity is on the planet. Furthermore, it showed the resiliency of ecosystems. Hopefully, those images and experiences will not just fade away but instead be used as inspiration for what we can and want to achieve.