The environmental impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic have quite literally been seen from space: Satellites observing earth from Nasa, the US Geological Survey and the European Space Agency, have captured data showing that at various points during the pandemic, deforestation rates slowed, snow became more reflective and water became cleaner.
In Asean, cars stayed in garages and factories were shut under the lockdown, which led to greatly improved air quality in cities. Kuala Lumpur, which normally experiences seasonal haze from deforestation and industrial activity, is one such example. The Malaysian Air Pollutant Index showed that atmospheric particulate matter levels during the lockdown were about 40-50 micrograms per cubic metre of air, compared with the normal levels of 50-70 mcg/cu m. These improvements are noteworthy, and are especially important for an Asian country given that 70% of the 6.5 million excess deaths which occur every year from air pollution take place in Asia.
Of course, this is not to downplay the deep economic and social pain that the pandemic inflicted, and nor does it ignore the serious environmental costs from the pandemic, such as the sudden growth of certain types of waste: Singapore increased the amount of plastic waste it produced by 1,334 tonnes in just two months of the lockdown due to higher demand for food delivery services, while the Asian Development Bank reported that Bangkok generated 245 tonnes of medical waste each day. In particular, the repercussions of copious amounts of sanitising chemicals going down the drain are a potentially unseen catastrophe. These studies are a reminder that while the environment has the capability of bouncing back to states of equilibrium in just a few months of restricted human activity, it is the deliberate choices we make regarding how we manage our economies and societies that allow environmental destruction and regeneration to occur, or not.
In many countries, those in Asean included, environmental damage has been seen as a necessary consequence of economic growth — a sort of collateral damage for a greater economic good while conveniently side-stepping more responsible ways of delivering on the key objectives of economic activity. But now, as Southeast Asia progresses into a post-pandemic future — and as the world confronts a century of unfettered growth — governments need to determine how much damage they can tolerate to keep the economy functioning and growing while safeguarding the resource base and limiting negative externalities.
In a world that will peak at a population around 10 billion, it should be clear that there are grave consequences for continuing along archaic lines of economic development rooted in environmental mismanagement. Unsurprisingly, this implies that there will need to be a shift in the way we see economic development and the creation of shared prosperity. Currently, bold ideas and objectives to achieve sustainable economic activity based on sound environmental management are cast aside due to the received wisdom that they impose limiting effects on growth. Instead, the conversation is centred on improving the mass consumption of each individual to sustain growth. But it is a dangerous myth to promulgate that everyone in Asean has a right to a Western lifestyle and associated levels of consumption — if everyone in the world were to live like an American, we would need four Earths.
