COVID-19 and Nature

What does COVID-19 have to do with the way we interact with nature? The answer may surprise you.  A field of study known as the “Ecology of Disease” explores the relationship between diseases throughout history and their origins in our natural world.  Simplistically, human activity causes diseases to jump species, or rather, travel from nature or wildlife to humans. This certainly is an unintended consequence of our ever expanding population growth across the globe, but there are critical lessons to be learned.

Most of us never really ask where or how a disease originated.  It may be surprising to learn their origins:

• The Spanish Influenza in 1918 came from birds, which mutated to pigs and then to humans.

• Ebola was first identified in 1976 near the Ebola River in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The prevalent theory is that it was in fruit bats, then monkey species and Chimpanzees.·        

• HIV, or Human Immunodeficiency Virus, was identified in 1983 and is believed to have
  been in monkeys and chimpanzees.  Humans contracted it when they were exposed to the blood of chimpanzees when butchering them for food.

• Measles is believed to have come from cattle and jumped to humans when they started living in close proximity.

• MERS—Middle East Respiratory Syndrome—was identified in 2012 and originated in Saudi Arabia.  It is believed that it may have originated in bats and was transmitted to camels, then humans.

• COVID-19 (the coronavirus)—It is believed the virus jumped from bats to human in Wuhan China after humans were found to eating uncooked bats.  In addition, scientists are exploring the additional possibility that pangolins sold at live animal markets also contributed to the transmission of coronavirus to humans.

Increased human populations, habitat destruction, altering ecosystems (such as with climate change), and even live animal markets all create conditions for mixing bowls for new diseases that jump from wildlife to humans.  There are a multitude of examples where diseases don’t just happen, they are a direct result of how we interact with and treat the natural world. As human populations grow and expand across the globe we are invading habitats and interacting with wildlife in ways that evolution did not intend.  Nature established natural barriers that are designed to protect us from exposure to animal pathogens, but we have eroded those barriers. One real consequence of these interactions is the exposure to diseases that we can not readily fend off.  Diseases that come from animals have higher fatality rates in humans.

So one critical lesson we need to learn is that we cannot separate health policy from
environmental policy.  If we don’t take care of nature, we are in fact, not taking care of our health.  Nature is not to be conquered by us, but rather it should be protected by us. 
When we protect our natural world, we are indeed protecting our health, our habitat and our future.

Industry Decisions Matter

Industry decisions matter.  So when Ortho, a division of Scotts, voluntarily decided to phase out the controversial class of pesticides known as neonicotinoids (a.k.a. neonics) in order to save bees, we were hopeful that other companies would follow their lead.   Neonicotinoids are a relatively new class of insecticides that affect the central nervous system of insects, resulting in paralysis and death. They include imidacloprid, which has been implicated in killing bees and pollinators.  But instead of other companies acting responsibly, they have gone into defense mode.   Bayer put out a blog mocking Ortho for their bold action.  Bayer stated “With hundreds of studies conducted, we know more about neonics and bees than any other pesticide, and new research continues to confirm their safe use around bees when used according to the label.”  Well, that’s simply a lie. Here’s a quote from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about their assessment released in January 2016, “EPA’s assessment, prepared in collaboration with California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation, indicates that imidacloprid potentially poses risk to hives when the pesticide comes in contact with certain crops that attract pollinators…The preliminary risk assessment identified a residue level for imidacloprid of 25 ppb, which sets a threshold above which effects on pollinator hives are likely to be seen, and at that level and below which effects are unlikely. These effects include decreases in pollinators as well as less honey produced.”

This means EPA’s analysis of detailed tests found that a specific concentration of the pesticide imidacloprid adversely impacts bees. If nectar brought back to the hive from worker bees had more than 25 parts per billion of the chemical, "there's a significant effect," namely fewer bees, less honey and "a less robust hive," said Jim Jones, EPA's assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention.

So here’s a radical idea, Bayer should stop lying and start phasing out neonics just like Scotts and Ortho did.  We need honey bees and pollinators, more than Bayer needs toxic pesticides to make money.  They can change their products.  We cannot change our global ecosystem and the role of bees in our food supply.

Shoreham Solar Commons Benefits Long Island’s Air and Water

Over the last decade, New York has seen multiple bad energy proposals, from offshore liquefied natural gas facilities, to hydrofracking, to  providing lifelines to dirty coal plants. Members of the public have time and time again said “no” to these polluting, antiquated fossil fuel projects. We need to move our state in a cleaner, more sustainable direction.  Fortunately, Governor Cuomo has listened to  the public and has continued to support and invest in increased renewable energy. Standing alongside former Vice President Al Gore, Cuomo recently pledged to reduce harmful climate change emissions and move NY towards a renewable energy economy. To fulfill that commitment, we need to invest in large scale wind and solar projects.

One such project is the Shoreham Solar Commons. This 25 megawatt solar project will replace energy now generated by dirty, polluting fossil plants on Long Island and reduce harmful climate change emissions by roughly 29,000 tons per year. That's good news for the climate, our environment, and public health for all Long Islanders.

Shoreham Can Aid Water Quality

In addition, the project will also work to improve water quality on Long Island. Long Islanders get 100% of our drinking water from underground aquifers. This groundwater also feeds all of our lakes, streams, rivers, and harbors. Unfortunately, the quality of our groundwater is steadily declining, due to increased contamination and over-development.

So, how will solar energy help our water quality? Currently, the site of the solar farm is a golf course—a heavy user of toxic pesticides and high-nitrogen fertilizers. By replacing the Tallgrass Golf Course, Shoreham Solar Commons will eliminate a significant source of these pollutants. There’s no need for fertilizers or pesticides under solar panels. Existing flora on the golf course will be replaced with indigenous, drought-resistant plants. This project will also prevent the site from being developed into new residences, mitigating further potential groundwater contamination by septic seepage, as well as residential application of pesticides and fertilizers.

Solar Sets the Right Energy Path for Long Island

Long Island has been on the forefront of many environmental and renewable energy initiatives and have set strong, aggressive precedents for environmentally sound decisions that will shape our energy future. Moving towards a 21stcentury renewable economy means investing in large scale wind, residential solar, and large scale solar projects. Shoreham Solar Commons would signify the right energy shift for Long Island and New York. This solar project is consistent with renewable goals called for by federal, regional, state, county, and local leaders. More importantly, it is aligned with what Long Islanders have been asking for—increased clean, home-grown renewable energy.