
Protecting nature could prevent the next pandemic. As humans and wildlife increasingly intermingle due to wildlife trade and deforestation, these types of viruses will only have more opportunity to infect homo sapien hosts. The CDC estimates that 6 in every 10 new diseases originate in animals, and those of concern in the US include coronaviruses, West Nile, rabies, and Lyme. These zoonotic diseases infect people during close contact with wildlife, with livestock sometimes serving as an intermediate vector. Deforestation increases this risk. When we increasingly carve up forests with roads and settlements, we also reduce habitat for wildlife, making humans and animals more likely to interact. To help reduce deforestation-related risks, ecologists could target areas where high-risk species—including bats, rodents, primates, and pangolins—dwell alongside humans. With the COVID-19 pandemic raging, the team of scientists prepared an economic analysis to see how much it might cost to stop zoonoses at their source. Using their expertise and existing information on policies to address deforestation and wildlife trade, the researchers assembled a global estimate of what it might cost to stave off pandemics. In total, preventing future pandemics through strategic protection of forests and regulating wildlife trade would cost between $22 and $31 billion a year. In addition, when the researchers considered the value of carbon sequestration provided by leaving trees alone, the cost of preventing pandemics went down by $4 billion per year. Pandemic prevention can also create new jobs in conservation, research, and veterinary medicine – Popular Science
- Extinction Rebellion, Greenpeace Campaign for a Breakup Between Big Tech and Big Oil – Inside Climate News
- Keep ‘unreliable, immoral’ Chevron Corp. out of Israel, activists urge MKs – The Times of Israel
- France to ban cafe terrace heaters as no longer cool – Reuters
- In 100 days, the climate emergency may be even more serious. That’s why we’re launching this series – The Guardian
- My Midlife Crisis as a Russian Sailor – Outside
- Germany’s forests decimated by insects, drought – Made for Minds
- London’s Covid-Safe Commute Idea: Open-Air Buses – Bloomberg.com

Environmental racism is killing Americans of color. Climate change will make it worse. Communities of color have appealed for decades to politicians, policymakers and environmental organizations that they “can’t breathe,” only to be ignored. In fact, Black, Brown, Indigenous and lower-wealth communities have disproportionately been the dumping grounds for our country’s deadliest toxic pollutants. Studies show that Hispanics, Asians, American Indians/Alaska Natives and especially African Americans experience higher risks of harm (including premature death) from air pollution. The late congressman John Lewis even warned: “When we take our air, waters and land for granted; when we show a simple lack of respect for nature and our environment, we unmake God’s good creation. Humanity is the most important endangered species under threat from climate change and yet we flood our ecology with poisons and pollution.” In particular, frontline communities are hit first and worst from climate change. They are the least likely to be able to recover, often forgotten as decisions take place about rebuilding their communities by those who benefit from the disaster economy. In conclusion, If America is ever going to “win” on climate change, it must first break its addiction to fossil fuels and racism. Only then can it truly be great – The Guardian

How Trees Can Help Us Fight a Pandemic. Christina Hemphill Fuller is an environmental exposure scientist and epidemiologist focused on the intersection of air pollution, public health, and racial justice. Her expertise has taken on even greater relevance as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has confirmed that Black and Latino communities have experienced some of the worst effects of COVID-19, being three times as likely to become infected as white people, and nearly twice as likely to die. Air pollution has been known for a long time to be associated with different diseases and conditions linked to respiratory disease, but it’s also linked to heart attack, heart disease, and lung cancer, in addition to pregnancy outcomes like preterm birth and babies being born early and babies being born smaller. There are many studies that have documented that communities with more Blacks or Hispanics have higher air pollution, and that’s because industries are placed there on purpose. Highway or major roads that has lots of cars and trucks on it run through communities of color, leading to high air pollution exposures in those neighborhoods. Natural gas and coal-fired power plants are also disproportionately in communities of color and low-income communities. There are other types of industries, like car body shop and dry cleaners, that are smaller producers, but they do produce air pollution and those are also disproportionately in color or low-income communities. With traffic pollution, in particular, in areas where we can’t necessarily remove a highway, we could reduce the impact that it has on the neighboring communities by putting in a barrier of trees there. It’s not only that green environments are wonderful for mental health, but they also can reduce the pollution that is coming off that roadway and affecting people who live next to it. There are thousands of schools across the country that are right next to highways, and kids are playing outside next to the road. But if we’re able to put something there like a tree barrier, they actually have been shown to reduce pollution – Mother Jones






Climate adaptation policies are needed more than ever. Pulling on the parachute. In the early days of political action on climate change adaptation was seen as a poor relation to cutting greenhouse-gas emissions or as a distraction. In 2010 with emissions rising steeply as the world bounced back from the financial crisis of 2007-09, adaptation began to take its proper place as a topic of international concern. Global average temperatures are already roughly 1°C warmer than they were in the 19th century, bringing more extreme and more erratic weather patterns. On May 16th this year he satellite images taken over the Bay of Bengal warned of impending disaster. Huge waves swept over the Indian and Bangladeshi coast. Tens of thousands lost their homes, yet the number of deaths was relatively low. For the last several decades, Bangladesh’s cyclone death tolls have been falling even though the storms have not become less brutal. Bangladesh has developed a layered adaptation plan to cope with these disasters. It now has an early-warning system giving people extra minutes to evacuate and seek shelter. In some developed countries, adaptation is also saving lives. An estimated 15,000 died in France in 2003 as a result of scorching August temperatures, but a heatwave in 2019 is estimated to have killed 1,500. The improvement was thanks to increased awareness of the threat, public policy, and private investment. There is now targeted support and medical attention for the most vulnerable. The authorities put air-conditioning into some public buildings. Many private citizens installed it, too. We know now that adaptation is not just a matter for poor countries. The damage which Hurricane Sandy wreaked in New York City in 2012 showed that extreme events could bring one of the world’s most important financial centres to its knees. Damages topped $19bn. Such losses spurred a $19.5bn urban-adaptation plan. In the eyes of some, rich governments are not the only guilty parties. In December the Philippines’s Commission on Human Rights declared that events leading to devastating storms like Typhoon Haiyan, which killed thousands of people in 2013, were a violation of human rights. They pointed the finger at fossil-fuel companies and other corporations – 
When Social Distancing Ends, Will We Rethink the World We Want? When we emerge from our pandemic-mandated separation, can we reconnect with each other and reconsider how the way we live impacts the natural world? How we behaved during this period of quarantine will fascinate researchers for years to come. Especially, for the first time in most of our lifetimes, the population as a whole has been told we have to shut down normal life, abandon most of our regular routines. That we have to change. It’s hard, but since it’s necessary we’ve done it — and surprisingly well. But what happens when we are released from detention will be at least as compelling — and for those of us hoping for an environmentally different future, it may be telling. Who knows? One possibility is that when all this is over we will revert straight back to normal, or even to some worse version of it. In search of recovery, nations could respond by trying to prop up old businesses like the fossil fuel industry (indeed, that is what our country is doing). Another possibility — and it’s only a possibility — is that we might actually find ourselves embracing gregariousness. In truth, we began social distancing a long time ago. First came the move to the suburbs: In the postwar years, America spent the bulk of its prosperity on the task of building bigger houses farther apart from each other. This caused environmental woes — all those big houses to heat and cool and migrate between — but it also meant that we simply ran into each other less. But have these new habits made us happy? Not really. The percentage of Americans who say they’re very happy with their lives peaked somewhere in the 1950s, according to the pollsters. However, coronavirus quarantine came like a stroke of lightning from a bright blue sky. That shock means, perhaps, that this time we will notice — that the long, slow slide into a kind of solipsistic trance will suddenly register. Maybe we’ll want to go back to something more like the normal that has defined our species for most of its existence: a desire for contact with each other, and with the natural world – 
