this is a multifaceted problem, as the environmental protection agency (epa), states that these tiny particles come with a variety of characteristics including size, composition, and are of different densities within our environment.  this invasion of microplastics doesn’t just damage the quality of our oceans, it festers and grows in the air we breathe, our food and drinks, and the products we use. it is so pervasive that, according to science direct, a recent study showed that this army of microplastics has marched its way into people’s bodies, including our bloodstreams.

the result of this study showed that 80% (17 out of 22) of the study’s subjects contained these life-threatening particles in their bloodstreams, which suggests that microplastics are in fact commonplace in most people’s bodies. the damage is outlined in another study from rovira university, which states that microplastics can stretch the membranes of red blood cells to the point where the transportation of oxygen in our circulatory system is affected.

how do microplastics get inside of us?

some people may never consider where the objects in the recycling bins actually end up or if those objects are actually being recycled. according to upstream solutions, only 6% of plastics are recycled and more than one-third of plastic packaging finds its way into the environment. when plastics are left alone in the ocean or on land, they break down into microplastics that can be smaller than five millimeters, resembling the size of a sesame seed. the united nations clean seas campaign found that there are approximately 51 trillion microplastic pieces in the ocean alone.

a handful of these particles may seem harmless, but since they are hydrophobic, meaning of a substance that repels water, an accumulation of them can cover many surfaces and absorb various organic pollutants including pesticides and industrial chemicals. according to the national library of medicine, once these harmful chemicals are ingested by organisms, they can easily accumulate in their systems and threaten their gastrointestinal tract. these particles are often transferred from one organism to another through ingestion, and have been able to reach humans. this common process is known as trophic transfer.

“i would assume living in a place where you’re around a lot of people, you’d probably increase your exposure (to microplastics),” said laura markley, a ph.d. candidate studying plastic pollution at syracuse university. “i think it would really depend on where you live.”

living in a populated city like syracuse, new york, it’s no surprise that most of the residents produce plastic waste. in today’s world, plastic is an ubiquitous staple of grocery shopping that consumers of all ages have a hard time avoiding. “it’s very difficult for an individual to reduce their production when the system is kind of made to produce that way,” markley said.  

shopping bags are not the only significant way that we come into contact with plastics. when we store our leftovers from previous meals or have a craving for the remainder of our takeout, the most convenient way of storing and reheating our food is by microwaving it in plastic containers.

according to markley, there are many processing agents and chemicals that give plastics desirable characteristics, but when those plastics are exposed to certain conditions such as high temperatures, as significant amount of those harmful chemicals within the plastic can leach out into the food we consume. one way this problem occurs is by using the same plastic container over and over again which eventually leads to parts of the plastic shedding off into the food we look forward to eating.

markley also emphasized that leached chemicals can mimic estrogen, the hormone key to the female reproductive system. according to  breastcancer.org, bisphenol-as (bpa) is an industrial chemical commonly found in plastics such as water bottles and sold in stores, that mimics estrogen which can lead to various kinds of cancer in women. markley went on to say, “that was just crazy to me because i was like, how can something i’ve used my entire life, be the source of these toxic chemicals!” 

going to the source

i also spoke with marcus eriksen, ph.d., scientist and co-founder of the 5 gyres organization, who emphasized how recycling contributes to plastic pollution. eriksen mentioned how many of us have been fooled into believing that participating more in this process will solve this world crisis. in reality, more needs to be done than just tossing single-use plastics into the recycling bin.

many materials such as plastic utensils and take-out containers are placed in landfills or end up in our oceans because they can not be recycled.

in our interview, eriksen said that cleaning up a patch of trash in the ocean and on land will not fix the entire problem. rather, it will take strategies to address the source of the issue, such as creating better designs for products and implementing source reduction without plastic. 

at the individual level, we certainly can aim to reduce our use of plastics. but the microplastics issue also needs to be addressed at a higher, larger level – through laws and policies. organizations similar to 5 gyres collaborate with policymakers to form agreements that hold companies accountable for their plastic production and aim to reduce the consumption of plastic. this ongoing world crisis can only be improved by working at its source to truly see a positive difference in our future. 

our government has the choice of acting on this worldwide issue, we just have to push our politicians. this task is easier said than done. but if we, as individuals, begin to hold our own usage of plastics accountable and communicate the dangers of microplastics to our representatives, there is hope that broader change is yet to come.

while my passion for the environment and for sustainability haven’t wavered, it would be naïve to neglect the fact that my philosophical understanding of environmental ethics has taken a new form. comprehending the pandemic and the actions necessary to mitigate it has forced me to reevaluate my ethical priorities. and along the way, i have had to adjust my own principles of living for the betterment of society.

let me explain.

after almost four months in strict lockdown in the heart of new york city, i decided to take advantage of my danish citizenship and spend my fall semester in denmark. the covid situation and restrictions there were very different over the summer months, having much to do with earlier shutdowns and the rapid testing that occurred faster than what we experienced in the united states. but unfortunately, denmark, and copenhagen in particular, experienced a harsh second wave of the virus as it approached the winter months.

the months in lockdown in new york, as well as living through a steady rise in danish cases shortly after, once again made me feel helpless. it’s difficult to appreciate all that is being done to tackle the virus when you simultaneously feel so removed from the progress.

but then, somehow, i managed to get involved.

through a few coincidental mutual friends and a fervent urge to do my part, i landed a job with a private company that provides rapid covid testing for patients. and suddenly, there i was, on “the front lines.” every positive test that i gave meant a complete change of gear: gown, gloves, mask, hairnet, wipe this, wipe that, spray disinfectant everywhere, crack the window, attempt to avoid inhaling all the fumes, wipe that again, and repeat.

the quick tests we give come individually wrapped and require the use of a single-use test tube, a single-use swab, and a single-use test kit—all parts sealed in a plastic sheath for protection. each patient is asked to fill out a paper form before we administer the test, requiring them to allow us to record their data if they do test positive, for governmental records. to get an idea, at the end of an 11-hour shift, i have sometimes filed away over 300 pieces of paper—and that’s just from my one room. we have 17 more rooms just in the mobile clinic that i work at.

if it wasn’t already clear, the amount of waste that accumulates after just a day’s worth of work is nauseating. i’m convinced it would be appalling even to those who aren’t acutely aware of the environmental impacts of single-use plastic. the guilt that hits me as i carry, sometimes up to five, stuffed black trash bags that i’ve filled behind “clinic no. 6” after my shift ends, hasn’t yet subsided.

but—i just cannot feel angry about it in the same way as i normally could. because this waste is a necessity to saving lives.

clearly, i desperately needed to adjust my priorities. it is ridiculous to feel the same level of guilt over the waste that is required for preventing disease transmission as i feel about avoidable day-to-day waste. perhaps if people were more conscious about avoiding waste in other areas of their lives, whether that be in product packaging, disposal items that have reusable alternatives, food waste, single-use plastic, etc., then it would be easier to dissipate the guilt of waste that will help halt the spread of covid.

it is once again extremely difficult to urge people to care about the environment at a time when there are more tangibly terrifying threats to our own species. so many of us have felt the personal ramifications of this pandemic and helping to stop its spread should no doubt be the priority. it would furthermore be impossible to focus on the many environmental challenges if you are burdened with illness yourself.

so, what i am asking for instead, is for us to collectively compromise. in order to test as many people as we can, these rapid test kits are necessary. the inconceivable portion waste that will continue to accumulate to prevent disease transmission therefore must proceed. that calls for everyone else, to once again, do their part. for the waste that can be avoided, twice the effort should be made so that twice as much waste is reduced and recycled. millions of people do have the means to dramatically reduce their footprint, and in this moment in history, they should be doing everything they possibly can. there is simply no excuse.

with everything that has divided us this past year, let us step into 2021 with a collective intention to work together to achieve a world that will benefit us all. if you can do your part to save the planet without any life-threatening risks, then you should do so, it’s a privilege. because people who cannot, are risking their lives in order to save lives.

ecotourism follows three main principles: conservation, community, and interpretation. it differs from traditional tourism because it invites tourists to view wildlife and threatened natural environments while keeping them at a distance. money spent by the tourists then filters back into the community, fostering economic growth and creating jobs.

for example, south africa generates $8.4 billion and 5,000 jobs from ecotourism alone. south africa has limited land that can be developed and effectively utilized. this creates a scarcity of employment opportunities. so, ecotourism is key to supporting local economies. 

ecotourists can also benefit, as they are immersed in the surrounding culture. ecotourism can help you gain a new environmental awareness that you may have been searching for!

due to the pandemic, areas that relied on ecotourism are facing the consequences. lauren gilhooly in the magazine sapiens highlights a correspondence with howard stanton, who runs a malaysian ecotourism destination: “(we have) had to put all staff on unpaid leave for the foreseeable future. … we have taken the decision to reduce all costs until a better time to open becomes available.” 

luckily, platforms such as veco labs are developing apps and sites that create an in-depth tourist experience consisting of 360-degree photographs with background audio, still images, and embedded videos. narration from guides is included to enhance the effect. 

a tour by veco labs can be found here. 

virtual ecotourism can remind you of your love for travel. it can also evoke your support for local economies through donations. as virtual ecotourism platforms grow, hopefully, direct donations to the featured areas will become more available. virtual ecotourism that donates its profits would be a great alternative for communities that rely on ecotourism as income, especially during the pandemic.

as the pandemic subsides in the future and normal travel resumes, you may think that virtual ecotourism cannot compare to the real experience of seeing wild animals and bonding with family during a vacation. 

however, with advances in technology occurring every day, it is exciting to think about the potential developments for virtual ecotourism. veco labs plans to add more interactive features into their interface so that users can ask questions and be guided in real-time throughout a destination. this replicates the social aspect of traditional tourism! 

but virtual ecotourism extends beyond pandemic relief. while ecotourism attempts to focus on conservation, its growth in popularity shows that negative environmental impacts are being exacerbated. in a study on the kodagu district in india, the ecotourism in the area is leading to a decrease in biodiversity, water quality, and air quality, among many other harmful effects. 

daniel blumstein, chair of ecology and evolutionary biology at ucla, warns that ecotourism’s effects on wildlife can be compared to that of animal domestication. wildlife becomes less aware of their surroundings, making them more susceptible to predators.  

thailand’s maya bay also experiences harm from ecotourism. maya bay has reported that 77% of the island’s coral is in danger due to the large number of visitors and boats that it must accommodate. 

a shift to virtual ecotourism can maintain all of the positive intentions of ecotourism such as proper conservation and economic support of local communities while diminishing the harmful effects that come with it. 

you can directly help the environment while satisfying your yearn for travel during the pandemic with virtual ecotourism. consider taking a virtual tour and bask in your heightened social and environmental consciousness!

none of this is normal. and yet, none of it is entirely too surprising. scientists have long been warning of the potential for a pandemic. the time and disease was never known, but the possibility was always there.

while much about the future remains uncertain, there is one thing we can predict: this is not the last pandemic humanity will face. and if we want to prevent future pandemics, we need to seriously consider how we interact with the environment, and how seriously we combat climate change.

covid-19 and the human-environment interaction are intertwined

the new coronavirus, covid-19, is a zoonotic disease. zoonotic diseases are diseases that come from pathogens that spill from wildlife (including animals, insects, and ticks) into humans, causing everything from mild to deadly illnesses including global pandemics. 

zoonotic diseases make up about 60% of all total diseases, and represent about 75% of emerging infectious diseases, and you’ve probably heard of more than a few of them. sars, mers, rabies, lyme disease, salmonella, zika, avian “bird” flu, and west nile are all zoonotic diseases. 

zoonotic diseases are nothing new. but they are increasing, and many of the drivers are a direct result of human interaction with the environment. 

for example, ecosystem destruction is a primary driver of zoonotic disease reproduction and transmission. natural ecosystems act as a buffer zone that prevents spillover of certain pathogens from animals to people. 

unfortunately, human activities including deforestation, agriculture, mining, and urbanization have caused large scale ecosystem fragmentation, impinging upon this essential buffer zone. this elicits more densely populated flocks of animals with more opportunities to congregate diseases, and with less of a barrier to prevent spillover into humans. 

increased and intensified animal agriculture further feeds the problem. the demand for meat and dairy products encourages intense animal agricultural practices that serve as incubation grounds for zoonotic diseases. 

in many factory farms, large amounts of genetically similar animals are clustered together. because they lack large genetic diversity, they become a group less resistant to infection, and thus more likely to fall ill and spread disease. indeed, livestock often serve as the disease bridge between wildlife and human life. 

furthermore, intensification of livestock not only contributes to ecosystem destruction, but also increases the amounts of animal waste contained in small spaces, and the amounts of fertilizer used, both of which can further foster environmental conditions that allow some pathogens to thrive. it also encourages antibiotic overuse, which itself is a risk factor for zoonotic disease emergence. 

and of course, animal agriculture contributes to climate change, which is another major driving factor for zoonotic disease emergence.

because climate change influences conditions that impact pathogen reproduction and transmission rates of pathogens, vectors, hosts, it can play a major role in infectious disease reproduction and transmission. 

for example, climate change shifts changes in things like temperature, humidity, precipitation patterns, and seasonality. extreme weather events related to climate change, like flooding, droughts, and wildfires, may exacerbate ecosystem fragmentation, or make environmental conditions even more amenable to disease outbreak.

all of these conditions impact how certain pathogens reproduce and spread, and certain changes driven by climate change may cultivate optimal conditions or extend seasons for select pathogens to thrive. 

there is substantial evidence to suggest that the risks associated with frequency and intensity of zoonotic diseases may increase with climate change.

but the environmental risks don’t stop there. air pollution, which kills an estimated 7-8 million people each year in non-pandemic conditions, threatens human health by increasing risks of chronic diseases like asthma and copd, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and neurological distress. many of these conditions are conditions considered ‘high risk’ for developing complications with covid-19.

thus, areas that have high levels of air pollution may have more people who are vulnerable to becoming seriously ill if they contract covid-19. sadly, high levels or air pollution are often found in lower income areas. compounded with poverty, which is itself a risk factor for poor health, it is feasible that mixing air pollution with coronavirus could increase vulnerability of already vulnerable populations.

it seems as if there is a positive feedback loop at play — several activities which contribute to climate change, including human activities that augment air pollution, and modern animal agriculture, are both independent risk factors for zoonotic disease, and both also contribute to climate change. 

climate change, in turn, increases ecosystem destruction which increases risks further, while independently acting as a risk factor for increased reproduction and transmission of zoonotic diseases. 

thus, it seems we cannot decrease the risks of future pandemics if we do not simultaneously assess how we interact with our environment. the problems are deeply intertwined.

and although this is a dual burden, it also presents a unique dual opportunity to blunt two major global threats simultaneously. 

so what can we learn, and how can we move forward?

there are many similarities between the covid-19 crisis and the climate change crisis: both are global threats to human health, the economy, and have the potential to disrupt life as we know it. 

the major difference between the two is the time scale at which they are unfolding.

with coronavirus, the threat is palpable; we see it unfolding daily as cases and fatalities continue to climb, and the world scrambles to find treatments, vaccines, and strategies to adapt to a new reality in the face of a major threat.

climate change, on the other hand, is unfolding a bit more slowly. while some directly see and feel its effects, for many, it seems like a distant and personally irrelevant threat.

yet, these two crises both require a global cooperative effort to mitigate their magnitude of their destructive potential, and rely heavily on work done by the scientific community to project their paths and to create and implement solutions.

and importantly, both require not only the cooperation of governments around the globe, but also action of everyday citizens. 

when it comes to climate change, that means individual action to reduce personal carbon footprint while supporting policies for sweeping change, and when it comes to coronavirus, that means adhering to public health recommendations by sheltering in place, wearing a mask, and social distancing. 

both instances require personal sacrifices, a trust in science, and a respect for greater good. and unfortunately, both coronavirus and climate change have been politicized, with certain individuals casting shadows of doubt on science and experts to fuel political narratives, creating an illusion of personal safety and remission of personal responsibility. 

which is perhaps why, most importantly, both of these crises run the risk of giving in to the temptation to delay taking action until it’s too late. we’ve seen the impact of complacency in parts of the world that believed itself immune to the dangers of covid-19, until the virus proved its potential to wreak havoc on communities. 

there is the potential that the crises created by climate change will have similar implications for disrupting humanity, riddled with the devastation, death, and economic fallout happening across the globe. some places will be hit harder than others, and some people and places are already feeling these effects. 

much like with the current pandemic, we must act swiftly and with global cooperation to implement solutions to mitigate the impacts of climate change, and, to make a parallel to covid-19, to flatten the curve of its destructive potential.

we have seen that on some scale, this is possible. with covid-19, the world has pulled together to fight a common enemy. people are staying home, helping their neighbors, and rising at opportunities to contribute to a greater good.

we have also learned with greater clarity what is really essential in terms of polluting activities we engage in in our daily lives. perhaps more of us can truly work from home from time to time, avoiding long daily commutes, and perhaps we can continue to eat food we have in our homes rather than seek out other foods to suit our moods and let leftovers go to waste.

the pandemic has also exposed the gravity of modern health and economic disparities in our societies, and perhaps we can move forward with plans that better serve those in need. 

and with coronavirus, as many around the world turn to medical and public health experts for guidance, eagerly waiting for scientists to create a treatment or vaccine, there’s a chance that this experience will perhaps bring about a returned trust in science and experts to guide relevant decisions. 

as humans, we have grown, and can continue to learn from these experiences to create a brighter future. 

all of these learned experiences will be helpful for working to better protect our environment, fight climate change, and prevent future pandemics. 

there is no way to disentangle future pandemics and how we treat the environment. luckily, this presents a dual opportunity: we can take better care of our planet, and by doing so, take better care of our health.