|
|
|
The views expressed on this page are
solely
those of the author and do not
necessarily represent the views of County
News Online
|
|
Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc./Getty Images
The Daily Signal
COVID-19 Is Helping the Environment. But at What Cost?
Nicolas Loris
April 23, 2020
The environmental benefits being seen from COVID-19 certainly sound
encouraging, but they raise the question: At what cost? Pictured: A man
donning Maryland and American flags is seen during a demonstration to
demand that Gov. Larry Hogan lift restrictions that have closed certain
businesses in Maryland since the coronavirus outbreak on Church Circle
in Annapolis, Maryland, April 18. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call,
Inc./Getty Images)
Earth Day turns 50 this year, but don’t expect to see any large
gatherings. The coronavirus pandemic has turned the 2020 celebration
into a virtual one.
According to some observers, though, that’s a good thing. One silver
lining of COVID-19, they point out, is a healthier environment.
Without a doubt, quarantining is yielding environmental improvements.
Driving and flying have dropped considerably. According to satellite
imagery from NASA, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and other
emissions are down. The canals in Venice are cleaner, and people in
certain parts of India can see the peaks of the Himalayas for the first
time in years.
These environmental benefits certainly sound encouraging. But they raise the question: At what cost?
Millions of people are stuck at home worrying about their finances.
Small business owners are wondering if and when they’ll be able to
reopen their doors—and pay their workers.
Schools have closed for the year. College and high school graduations
are canceled. Anxiety and isolation have replaced many of our most
basic activities.
Granted, the human species is a resilient bunch. People have found
countless ways to educate, entertain, and stay positive. But do we
really want to associate environmental progress with a worldwide
pandemic and off-the-charts amounts of human suffering—both physical
and financial?
Many people would gladly trade the ability to earn a living, and the
opportunity to take care of family members, for the amount of pollution
we reduced over the past few weeks. If anything, it should serve as a
reminder that the environmental byproducts we produce when we travel to
work or to visit our families over the holidays—and still breathe fresh
air—is worth it.
Of course, that is not true everywhere. Poor air quality is a real
concern in developing countries like China and India. But so are
accessing basic necessities, such as access to affordable, reliable
electricity.
In India, for example, and other places where temperatures can be
sweltering, a sign of economic and social mobility is being able to
afford an air conditioner. In other parts of the world, countries are
making trade-offs by prioritizing economic well-being over the
environment.
The solution to better air and water quality, however, is not to trap
the world’s poorest people in poverty. Rather, it is to ensure people
can achieve better standards of living of higher levels of wealth so
they have the means to live a better life and also devote resources
toward environmental protection.
And as we devote resources to environmental protection, it’s important to remember the law of diminishing returns.
For instance, think about cleaning your house. At first, there are
noticeable gains from picking up, vacuuming, and dusting. At a point,
though, the cost of effort in cleaning isn’t worth the benefit you’ll
receive. You’re not about to move the fridge every day to get the dust
and crumbs in the back corner of your kitchen.
The same holds true for the costs and benefits of environmental
regulation. In many instances in the United States, the higher prices
households and businesses pay for more stringent standards have
negligible environmental benefits.
Similarly, the trade-off isn’t worth it.
America’s strong environmental record is not to suggest, however, that
we should be happy with the status quo. Rather than considering the
trade-offs between economic growth and environmental progress, let’s
improve upon the ways where they go hand in hand. Innovators are
continually seeking out ways to introduce new technologies that have
smaller environmental footprints.
Businesses and individuals have a financial motivation to do more with
less. Beverage manufacturers have significantly reduced the amount of
plastic for bottled water and soda and are now manufacturing bottles
partly from plants. Grocery stores and office buildings use
energy-efficient lights and install motion-activated lights in less
trafficked areas to cut costs.
And there’s a reason parents tell their kids to turn off the lights
when they leave the room or to close the door. Because money doesn’t
grow on trees. The economic incentive that drives these decisions also
generates better environmental outcomes.
Many lessons learned will come from living in a coronavirus world. As a
grand experiment, it may prove to help better understand the
relationship between the global economic engine and the environmental
byproducts that engine produces.
But it should also give us a sense of appreciation as Americans to live
in a world where we can use a great deal of energy and breathe
comfortably. And when we reopen the doors to economic activity, we can
harness human ingenuity to make our lives more enjoyable and our
environment healthier.
|
|
|
|
