Introduction
Pandemics, in general, are not just a severe public health problem; they cause catastrophic socioeconomic and political crises in the countries where the infection occurred. With the arrival of the coronavirus in these countries, economic activity has slowed considerably because of quarantine, and the accompanying anthropogenic environmental impact has also decreased (Hampton, 2020). Until 2020, the increase in greenhouse gases occurring since the beginning of the industrialization era has led to a rise in global average temperatures on Earth, causing effects such as melting glaciers and rising sea levels (Ryan, 2020). Human activities, in various forms, caused environmental degradation and triggered the sixth mass extinction. However, the ecological consequences of a worldwide pandemic are mixed.
At the same time, globalization complicates the ecological situation. The bottom line is that countries and nations are interconnected, and one nation’s harmful industry causes consequences to spread to its neighbors. Globalization is not only about economic integration, its political, informational, and cultural aspects are also important. For example, India and China are under international economic and political pressure to meet higher environmental standards.
How the Pandemic Has Helped the Environment
An apparent positive consequence of the epidemic has been improved air quality – because of the quarantine, there are fewer cars on city streets, and only businesses that produce vital products and services continue to operate. It led to a quarter reduction in China’s carbon dioxide emissions at the beginning of 2020 compared to the same period last year (Ryan, 2020, p. 117). Coal use at the country’s six largest power plants fell by 40% over the same period (Ryan, 2020, p. 117). Combined emissions from industrial processes, manufacturing, and construction account for 18.4% of global anthropogenic emissions (Ryan, 2020, p. 120). The financial crisis of 2008-2009 led to an overall reduction of 1.3% in emissions; in 2020, the figure will be about 0.3% (Ryan, 2020, p. 131). According to China’s Ministry of Ecology and Environment, the number of days with “good quality air” in 337 Chinese cities has increased by 11.4% compared to the same period last year (Gupta & Goyal, 2020, p. 80). In Europe, satellite images show that nitrogen dioxide emissions, a substance harmful to human health, have dropped to almost zero over northern Italy.
The situation is similar in Spain and the United Kingdom. The reduction in carbon dioxide emissions is due to the removal of cars on the streets, which account for about 23% of total CO2 emissions (Hampton, 2020, p. 39). In addition, the quarantine has contributed to the shift of millions of people to remote work, which has helped reduce the number of trips by private cars and public transport. Carbon dioxide, released into the atmosphere by airplane flights, accounts for up to 11% of emissions (Gupta & Goyal, 2020, p. 81). Considering that air travel will decrease by 15-45% in February-May 2020, the growth of aviation emissions will slow significantly (Ryan, 2020, p. 133). Lockdown has given residents of Beijing, Delhi, Bangkok, and Sao Paulo a unique opportunity to breathe clean air and clean the water in Venice’s canals (Hampton, 2020). The International Energy Agency predicts the biggest ever drop in greenhouse gas emissions – by 8% by 2020 (Ryan, 2020, p. 133). Pollution is recovering as fast as it once did. In China, for example, already by mid-May, concentrations of harmful substances in the air had exceeded those of a year ago – a kind of symbol of the country’s return to the old normality (Gupta & Goyal, 2020). Despite reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, atmospheric concentrations continue to rise. To prevent warming above 1.5-2 degrees compared to pre-industrial levels, it is necessary to reduce emissions at the same rate every year for the next decade.
Factors Explaining the Environmental Dangers of the COVID-19
Despite a temporary reduction in global carbon emissions, the International Energy Agency has warned that the economic turmoil caused by the coronavirus outbreak could hinder or delay companies’ investments in green energy. The unprecedented use of disposable masks and gloves is causing severe environmental pollution with large amounts of plastic and other synthetic materials, which are resistant to liquids and very slow to decompose (Hampton, 2020). At the same time, medical masks should not be worn for more than one day, and wet wipes made of a similar material should not be used more than once.
This has resulted in the city of Wuhan in China, which was the epicenter of the country’s epidemic, generating about 200 tons of medical waste in a single day – several times more than before the epidemic and four times more than the only waste treatment plant in the city can burn in a day (Ryan, 2020, p. 119). An environmental NGO, Ocean Asia, on Soko Island in Hong Kong, found that large amounts of discarded masks were washed onto a 100-meter-long beach (Hampton, 2020). The consequences of contamination by such medical waste have far-reaching problems. When they are dumped into their natural habitat on land, animals mistakenly eat them under the guise of food (Gupta & Goyal, 2020). This can lead to serious health problems up to and including death. All leading nations, oriented toward recognizing the value of human life, have deliberately taken enormous economic losses. The question now is whether the same logic will be applied to air pollution or to climate change, from which many more people are dying than from the coronavirus and from which there is no escape with a vaccine (Gupta & Goyal, 2020). At the same time, by bringing clean air back to cities, the coronavirus has intensified the demand for a quality environment.
Possible Solutions to the Environmental Consequences of COVID-19
The large-scale production of masks, gloves, and other safety equipment leads to vast amounts of waste and garbage. In other words, medical masks are already polluting the ocean and cities’ streets, and their production is harming air quality. Nevertheless, state authorities are trying to prevent the global pollution of industrial COVID-19 products (Gupta & Goyal, 2020). For example, there are general recycling fees for disposable masks and gloves. In addition, mask technology is being developed to create reusable respirators that do not have to be disposed of after a single use (Gupta & Goyal, 2020). It will reduce the number of masks thrown away each day, which the recycling and waste collection industry may not handle.
The State of the Environment and Environmental Policy in the Context of Globalization
Globalization processes have a significant impact both on the environment and on environmental policy. For example, international trade can significantly degrade the environment when ecological costs are not considered in pricing. Also, international trade can stimulate the raw material sector of the economy and, consequently, the excessive extraction of resources for export (Campbell, 2020). Neglecting environmental costs gives a competitive advantage in this case as well (Campbell, 2020). Thus, in countries with weak environmental governance, including China and India, economic liberalization can lead to environmental degradation.
In general, international trade leads to changes in the environment through structural, scale, technological, and product effects. The structural impact determines the specialization and location of production (Campbell, 2020). It is not essentially positive or negative because depending on environmental policies, which determine who bears the ecological costs, a state can specialize in exporting the products of relatively environmentally friendly industries and importing the goods of polluting industries, and vice versa. Economies of scale are primarily harmful to the environment due to tremendous absolute pressure on its resources during the expansion of economic activity. The technological effect is seen as positive and consists of the fact that an increase in income increases demands on environmental quality and leads to stricter environmental standards and the introduction of more advanced technologies. The product effect depends on consumption and demand patterns and is therefore conditioned by consumers’ level of environmental awareness.
Trade simulations between the rich North and the poor South show that structural and scale effects are highly adverse in developing countries specializing in environmentally hazardous production. In contrast, the possible positive technological developments are minimal. Moreover, in the course of economic liberalization, the overall level of pollution concentrated in developing countries becomes a “polluter’s refuge.” The “polluter’s refuge” hypothesis, prevalent in Chinese and Indian academic discourse, states that environmentally hazardous industries tend to migrate to developing countries with weak environmental governance through foreign direct investment. For example, Chinese scholars have found that emissions and waste largely cause pollution in China from export-oriented production of plastic products, machinery and equipment, and industrial chemicals and that the “polluter’s refuge” hypothesis is entirely valid for Sino-American trade relations (Rowley & Benson, 2018). The fact that most of China’s investment goes into the most environmentally hazardous industries is also confirmed by Russian scientists (Rowley & Benson, 2018). Their Indian colleagues, for their part, reject the validity of this hypothesis for India, arguing that the increase in pollution due to increased exports is half as significant as its potential reduction in the case of increased imports, which means that the country benefits from foreign trade, and therefore cannot be considered a “haven for polluters.” There is an inverse relationship between foreign direct investment and environmental policy. Depending on the level of corruption, foreign direct investment can weaken ecological laws and thus the emergence of “safe havens for polluters.”
Countries of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development demand harmonization of environmental standards in trade because they fear that lower standards will give developing countries a competitive advantage (Rowley & Benson, 2018). However, China and India themselves are actively involved in collective decision-making on topical issues related to trade and the environment, for example, in the framework of the World Trade Organization (Steger & James, 2019). Other international organizations and some developed countries are helping India and China transition to more sustainable development models by providing financial and, to a lesser extent, technological assistance.
Factors Explaining the Seriousness of the Effects of Globalization
International nongovernmental organizations are also increasingly influencing the eco-political environment, although their role in China should not be overestimated. New consumption patterns in developed countries are also affecting the environmental policies of the two countries: to maintain their position in foreign markets, China and India are being forced to produce more and more high-quality, environmentally friendly, and health-conscious goods (Steger & James, 2019). Increasingly, Chinese and Indian companies are resorting to international ISO 14000 and 14001 certifications (Rowley & Benson, 2018, p. 150). In addition, under the influence of European and American trends, new consumption patterns are being formed in the domestic market (Catão & Obstfeld, 2019). The demand for software also contributes to economic growth with minimal impact on the environment. However, these positive trends should not be overestimated: India and China still lack the technology and financial resources to implement effective environmental policies (Catão & Obstfeld, 2019). In addition, most of China’s exports are still a source of concern in developed countries because of their poor quality, poor working conditions, and negative environmental impacts of their production.
Analysis and Possible Solutions to the Environmental Consequences of Globalization
An important transnational aspect of environmental issues is the international trade in waste: exporting waste to developing countries is the most profitable way to dispose of it. For example, a significant amount of European waste, mostly paper and plastic, is imported to China for recycling (Catão & Obstfeld, 2019). However, existing methods and technology have severe environmental and social consequences for the country, including air and water pollution, poor working conditions, low wages, and high worker morbidity. Despite restrictions on the import of recyclables and a complete ban on the significance of non-recyclable waste, corruption and the physical impossibility of checking all imported waste make the problem urgent (Rowley & Benson, 2018). The issue of legal and illegal garbage imports is also acute in India, where garbage is also not appropriately recycled.
The e-waste exported in huge quantities from developed countries to China and India poses a particular threat to the environment. Its crude processing results in water and soil contamination with heavy metals, acids, and other hazardous substances, serious health problems for the local population, and new landfills (Rowley & Benson, 2018). To solve the problem, India is considering a total ban on e-waste imports, but here, as in other cases, economic benefits have so far taken precedence.
Economic development and environmental degradation in India and China are also affecting people in other countries. Cross-border air pollution is a severe problem: sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from fossil fuel combustion can remain in the atmosphere for days and travel hundreds or thousands of kilometers before falling to Earth in the form of acid rain (Steger & James, 2019). Pakistan and Bangladesh have to import polluted waters from the Indus and Ganges, much of whose basins are in India (Steger & James, 2019). The Yellow, East China, and South China Seas pollution is a grave concern to China’s neighbors (Steger & James, 2019). An example is the transboundary consequences of leaks at nuclear power plants in Japan in 2011 (Rowley & Benson, 2018, p. 115).
Conclusion
It must be emphasized that the problems described in this paper are becoming very serious. It seems to me that states need, first of all, to pay attention to the global pandemic and its consequences. The fact is that large quantities of garbage in the form of masks, gloves, and bottles from sanitizers can even now be found on city streets. It’s hard to imagine how much of this waste could be in the ocean or the forest as the wind blows it over large areas. If we don’t do enough to minimize the polluting effects as well as prevent new ones, it will lead to ecological catastrophe. In addition, it is noticeable that covid problems are also closely related to globalization. Although these are two different spheres, they should be considered together. At a minimum, globalization has caused the virus to spread rapidly around the world. At the most, the collective production of defenses by many nations simultaneously leads to the catalyzing of contamination and toxic production. I believe that globalization has a positive effect on the world economy and societal development but that certain areas, such as technology and production, must be controlled. Otherwise, it does more harm than good.
References
Campbell, J. L. (2020). Institutional change and globalization. Princeton University Press.
Catão, L., Obstfeld, M. (2019). Meeting globalization’s challenges. Policies to make trade work for all. Princeton University Press.
Gupta, A. K., Goyal M. K. (Ed.). (2020). Integrated risk of pandemic: COVID-19 impacts, resilience and recommendations. Springer Singapore.
Hampton, A. (2020). Pandemic, ecology and theology. Perspectives on COVID-19. Taylor & Francis.
Rowley, C., Benson, J. (2018). Globalization and labour in the Asia Pacific. Taylor & Francis.
Ryan, J. M. (2020). COVID-19. Volume I: Global pandemic, societal responses, ideological solutions. Taylor & Francis.
Steger, M. B., James, P. (2019). Globalization matters. Engaging the global in unsettled times. Cambridge University Press.