There is no doubt that people like things. Whether it be the fourth pair of almost the same shoes, the third copy of the same shirt in a different color, or getting this fifth bubble tea of the week, people enjoy treating themselves to things. The increase in consumerism is seen as nations develop. While this is great for the economy as people use and desire more things, and thus spend more money, the environment takes a different toll.

Producing items is costly to the environment. It consumes natural resources, creates pollution, and the disposal of items fills landfills. For example, if a person can use a pair of shoes two years then dispose of them to a shoe recycling organization before getting a new pair, this is very environmentally sound. However, I, like most people, cannot live like this. I find great pleasure in having options. This is not only in options such as shoe type, but options within each type. I enjoy an assortment of colors, brands, and styles. This preference has caused me to indulge in several pairs of shoes, none of which see the end of their life. Most of my shoes end up being worn on rotation, and thus none of then get incredibly worn down. With my attachment style, I have trouble letting any of them go, but I still desire the accumulation of more.

Shoes though are just one example. People love upgrading, but they are careless to consider the environmental impacts the still functioning “downgrade” has, if not disposed of correctly. This is widely seen in electronics, as the desire to upgrade causes many old devices to be left sitting in attics and basements. People reminisce on the money they spent on the item at the time, and are hesitant to donate or recycle their items.

As consumerism is being pushed as the US economy is struggling through the coronavirus as much as the citizens are, people must be considerate, too, of the environmental impacts of their actions. Getting a $7 Chipotle bowl delivered from 10 miles away may have more environmental impact than one may think.

Truly, this is an unknown balance of supporting businesses and the economy while considering the environment. It almost seems as if you cannot have one without sacrificing another. But, if we uplift our standards to only consuming items that are made by companies with sustainability in mind, there may be a perfect balance waiting to be uncovered.

As consumers sweep the shelves of grocery stores for hand sanitizer, Clorox wipes, antibacterial soaps, and immune support medicine, people are often negligent of their repercussions on the environment.

Most easily seen are disinfecting wipes, which are made of a woven polyster-like material. This causes it to ask similarly to polyester clothing and thus being overall nonbiodegradable. Their increased use will have a toll on the environment as they fill landfills, pollute waterways, and get flushed into the sewage system, causing blocks. It is easy to see why these are incredibly appealing to consumers, though, as they are easy to use, get the job done, and smell pleasant. However, most users are unaware of their environmental impact. Using them when needed is okay, but hoarding them and excessively using them will damage the environment.

Clorox has developed its own compostable version of disinfectant wipes, which can be decomposed within a few months depending on conditions.

However, another alternative is the use of a traditional spray bottle along with a paper towel or rag, which would effectively get the job done. Simple Green is an environmentally friendly alternative to traditional cleaning methods, with its formula being both non-toxic and biodegradable. Additionally, it is significantly cheaper than the price of cleaning wipes. This alternative may act as a better solution to keeping our homes clean from pathogens.

Antibacterial soaps pose another issue to our environment. If any traces of the chemicals run off into the surrounding ecology, the ecosystem can be damaged right away. As antibacterial soaps are incredibly powerful at rendering bacteria and viruses inactive while we wash our hands, it has the same impact of the bacteria in our environment. Bacteria play a key roll in ecosystems around the world, often starting and ending the food chain. If the increased use of antibacterial soaps in this time of panic results in run off to the surrounding ecosystem, everything may be thrown off. As ecologists and environmentalists study the impact of the coronavirus on the environment, the impact of antibacterial soaps must be considered.

A final and significantly smaller consideration is the disposal of the bottles containing these products: hand sanitizer, soaps, medicines. Through this time of panic where people may forget about the environment, media must still promote the practice of recycling plastic bottles. These items add up as all families begin consuming them, and proper disposal is the civic responsibility of each household.

As the world is on edge about the coronavirus spreading amongst countries and around the Earth, businesses, and people are changing their lifestyles to accommodate. These precautions are logical, but their actual necessity may be questionable. Many of the practices being instilled in this time of unknown take it own toll on the environment, a source of activism that has taken a pause in light of this pandemic.

To start, this pandemic has benefitted the environment in some ways. As governments and organizations encourage people to remain in isolation, the consumption of oil and natural gas decreases dramatically. This can be seen in the rapid fall in gas prices over the past months. Additionally, vacations and airplane trips are less common, decreasing another source of carbon emissions. As the oil industry takes a large toll due to this pandemic, the environment actually gains some benefits.

However, there are several other practices that are harming the environment, beginning with the widespread use of facemasks. The actual number of facemasks used and purchased thus far is unquantified. At stores, it can be seen that there is no stock remaining, and even warehouses are out of stock. Facemasks can only be worn for a finite amount of time before they are ineffective, and their effectiveness, to begin with, is questionable as well. Regardless, when these are disposed of, they act in similar ways to diapers when biodegrading, thus taking about 500 years in a landfill.

An additional issue comes with the use of medical gloves in everyday situations. These disposable nitrile or latex gloves take about two years to biodegrade, and their increased use puts a toll on landfills. In my own experience, I saw what I would identify as “a boomer” shopping at a grocery store with medical gloves on. Although this is logical as older people experience a higher death rate with this new virus, this practice was likely unnecessary since there are still no reported cases in Western PA.

Finally, coffee shops are contributing their regulations as well, with Starbucks and Dunkin temporarily ending their reusable cup programs due to the virus. This seems like a logical change, but the likelihood of spread through a coffee canister with the lid (where the mouth touches) off seems quite unlikely. This change will also increase the number of single-use cups needed to be used. These cups will find themselves in landfills for up to 20 years before decomposition.