Pandemics and the Environment: Why must we be cautious?
By Sachit Ganla
The Sars-Cov-2 is not one of the first zoonosis virus known to the human race. We have seen in the past few decades the rise of novel viruses such as Ebola, Sars (2003) and the H1N1 flu outbreak. The question then emerges is that what are the likely causes of such a sudden and constant rise in novel viruses in recent years.
A Netflix documentary named “Explained” argues an interesting concept which holds true for the various novel viruses mentioned above. The 29 minute episode brings in the theory of environmental degradation and ecosystem imbalance caused by anthropogenic human activity that has reduced the barriers of contact between the virus carrying animal and the human host.
The common point that is mentioned above is that all of the viruses mentioned above are zoonotic in nature i.e. the virus has jumped from the animal to the human where the latter has no immunity towards it. The case of Ebola arose due to ecosystem degradation in Africa where land use changes forced bats and chimpanzees to live together. In the case of 1918 H1N1 outbreak it had originated from a farm in US located close to a forest (Armstrong et.al 2020). Living on the same resources and increased human contact had allowed the virus to jump from one species to the other allowing for the human to become a habitable host.
An organization known as the EcoHealth Alliance after the 2003 Sars outbreak has been visiting different caves in China to analyze bats to study future novel viruses that could emerge. Those that could then easily make the leap to humans are flagged and the government of China would then reduce the exposure such bats had on the human population. However they discovered more hundred forms of corona viruses and each of them were placed in a dichotomous categorization of high and low risk depending on the chances of the virus jumping to humans (Explained 2020).
A few years earlier they discovered a corona virus known as “batcoronavirus RaTG13” after genome sequencing they found out that this low risk virus was 96% similar to SARS COV 2 virus we know today (Explained 2020). Therefore this virus may likely evolved and jumped from the bat to either the pangolin or any other wildlife species to have the ability to infect human hosts at the Wuhan wet market. The intermediately source is still not known.
The point after such long examples is that with increased anthropogenic activities that include land use change for agriculture, industrial activity and in general to push for economic development at cost of environmental degradation and ecosystem imbalances has decreased the barrier and allowed such outbreaks to be a common phenomena.
A fairly rich ecosystem would prevent such pandemics from emerging; a pathogen in such a system would largely encounter hosts that are of low competence that means that would less likely to be vectors that would spread the disease (Armstrong et.al 2020).
The case of the current SARS-COV-2 virus is not linked to any form of ecosystem imbalance. The point of the above argument is that we have critically analyze our anthropogenic activities and emphasize a policy of de-growth and adaptation. However the virus being zoonotic has been linked to the Wuhan wet markets where the jump is suggested to have occurred.
The reason for the establishment of such wet markets is the increasing demand of meat products. I do not suggest herein that pandemics may stop with a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle but there has been an increasing demand of wildlife based meat which is the reason we face this pandemic today.
This also however is not a reason to make the Chinese our enemies like the right wing would love to do. This leads to racism and bigotry behavior which a “modern” society should not aspire towards. However with the current social media posts one would think otherwise. There are also instances of foreigners visiting the country to try such meat. Therefore blaming only the Chinese for its cultural habits is not a recommended move.
The question therefore that arises is what must be done in such markets to ensure that such pandemics repeat themselves. One could be regulating movement in such markets. Ensuring that there are only limited number of people who can visit per day based on a token or ticketing system. In case such a virus does arise the Chinese government will have a database of visitors who can be isolated and traced. Second and most important, ensuring the jump does not occur. Animals of different kinds can be socially distanced; food separated out and fecal matter disposed off at a safe preferable with workers with protective gear. Such initiatives could reduce the chances of another virus jumping to make human suitable hosts and also ensure that cultural values aren’t harmed by international pressures.
The path ahead?
A large number of countries went into lockdown and many took strong measures shutting down the economy. India saw a large scale migratory exodus with the central government refusing to help states manage the crises being faced.
There have been also a large discourse of climate change being reversed due to the lockdown; however that again does not hold true. A discourse for opening up the economy and a new normal. The climate change argument is fallacious because historically from 1870 to 2010 we have emitted 667 GtC (gigatons of carbon). The total carbon space available not to cross the 2 degree limit mandated by the Paris Agreement stands at 992 GtC. Therefore we have 77 GtC to cross 1.5 degrees and 325 GtC to cross the 2 degree mark (Kanitkar 2015 pp.70). We have already been emitting globally per year 11.33 Gtc.
Even with the lockdown and shutting down of industrial activity and modes of transport we will reduce the carbon emissions globally but not a level that is enough to prevent temperature rise greater than 2 degrees in the next 50–60 years. Also what must be observed is the cost at what this lockdown has benefitted the environment. There is also a growing fear that the melting ice-caps may lead to the release of pathogens lost to time.
Therefore what should be the path ahead? The solution personally would be to adopt a policy of de growth. Industries should switch to renewable energies that are sustainable. States should ensure infrastructure set up such that households do not depend on non-renewable energies for electricity. Public transport should be expanded. Agriculture should be made smarter taking into account temperature rise and innovating crops and livelihood opportunities that adapting towards newer climatic conditions (FAO experiment on fodder in Uganda) (FAO 2016).
Forests should be protected such that they act as carbon sinks and also the natural habitat for wildlife such that future jumps do not occur. Wild animals that can likely cause a future pandemic could be isolated and protected.
What must be done is a policy of de-growth; the social and economic costs of future pandemics are too high. The current pandemic has caused large scale misery for many of the poor and cases of domestic violence are on the rise. Many countries that have not developed socialist based healthcare with wide networks will tend to suffer the most.
Therefore it is imperative that we go back to the drawing board and understand how we can regulate the expansion of our economy as a whole. Environmental assessments should be put into place. Building of big dams to serve vested interests must also be evaluated. There is a strong need to go back to de-growth and ensure that our economic activities as a world does not harm the natural habitats of a large number of wild animals and ensure that any form ecosystem is not left imbalanced.
1).Armstrong F, Capon A, McFarlane R. (March 31st 2020). Coronavirus is a wakeup call:our war with the environment is leading the pandemics. Available from: https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/coronavirus-is-a-wake-up-call-our-war-with-the-environment-is-leading-to-pandemics-13503. [Accessed: 28/5/2020].
2). FAO. (2016). Climate Action in Uganda. Available from: https:///youtu.be/TKr3tLrgLo.
3).Kanitkar T. (2015). What Should the Climate Goal Be? 1.5 or 2.0 C. Review of Agrarian Studies. Vol. 5(Issue 2), 60–71.
4).Netflix India. (2020). Coronavirus, Explained. Available from: netflix.in.