INTRODUCTION
Social inequality - the occurrence of unequal opportunities, resources and benefits for different social ranks within a society, has been growing steadily in Nigeria within the last few decades and has grown greatly post COVID-19. There are several dimensions to social inequality, some of which include income, wealth, power, education, occupational dignity and heritage (Moffitt and Chapel, 2015).

This recent trend in rising social inequality, especially post COVID-19 lockdown, has implications for the health of the people and their natural environment. Social inequality has been reported to promote perceptions of relative disadvantage in people thereby leading to psycho-social stress (Wilkinson, 2001) and disintegration of social unity and/or asset (Kawachi et al., 1997; Kawachi and Kennedy, 2006). On the other hand, socially unequal societies are more likely to degrade their environments. This is because social inequality does not only affect levels in environmental exposures (that burdens greatly, the disadvantaged), it also leads to higher levels of exposure to pollutants (Mohai et al., 2009). This means that even though social inequality has the greatest impact on the most disadvantaged members of the society, it is harmful to everyone. There are several theories in literature that link social inequality to the environment. Three broad classifications of these theories describe the negative effect of social inequality on the environment as follows:
1. effects from inequalities in political power that influence the interests that are represented in social decision-making processes
2. effects from the relationship between social inequality and the intensity of environmental withdrawals/consumption
3. effects arising from social unity/cooperation to protect a common environmental resource
We continue by discussing these theories a little further, and then discuss the effects of the environmental outcomes of social inequality on biodiversity. We will then conclude by stating the importance of socially-inclusive policy making in the fight against biodiversity loss.

THE POLITICAL POWER-SOCIAL DECISION EFFECT
Previous studies suggest that the wider the gap between the poor and the wealthy in a society, the greater the levels of pollution (Boyce, 1994). This means that, although the wealthy are in a better position to shield themselves from the effects of pollution, they contribute more to pollution through the establishment of production industries and through increased consumption (they have money to buy more items). In view of this, they are more capable of wielding political influence to keep their industries running; of influencing the availability and consumption of non-ecofriendly products; and keeping the poor at the mercy of their polluting activities. Where wealth and economic benefits are at the center, relevant social-policy decisions, like the adoption of environmental standards and regulations are often overlooked and/or treated with laxity. Political power may also be wielded by the wealthy to prevent the situation of polluting industries in their neighborhood. In a developing country like Nigeria, host communities for such industries may be selected along socio-economic or ethnic lines. So, inequality in political power sharing occasioned by economic or ethnic biases are capable of deepening the disparities in exposure to environmental pollution. Therefore, the political power-social decision theory suggests that unequal exposure to environmental pollution may lead to higher levels of pollution in a society (Crushing et al. 2015).

EFFECTS OF INTENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL WITHDRAWALS
In a society where the gap between the poor and the wealthy is very wide, the high consumption pattern of the wealthy fuels in the poor, the desire to consume more as the poor tries to emulate the wealthy to act rich (Frank, 2012). As consumption by the poor soars, there’s therefore an overall increase in pollution in a socially unequal society. Unfortunately, where the poor strives to earn more and spend more, household debts increase, thereby widening further, the inequality gap. Similarly, to earn more, people (mostly the poor) are likely to work longer hours which will in turn increase economic production. Economic production of goods and services have been found to be one of the primary drivers of environmental degradation. Furthermore, working longer hours means more earnings and less time to make eco-friendly choices like taking a public transport system rather than driving a car (Devetter and Rousseau, 2011).

EFFECTS OF SOCIAL UNITY
Social inequality breeds distrust, insecurity, rivalry and competition amongst people thereby preventing/destroying unity amongst them (Delhey and Dragolov, 2014). However, co-operation amongst a group of persons in respect of a collective resource has been reported to promote environmental service and care (Nannestad, 2008). Sønderskov (2011) found that individuals who trust more are more likely to recycle. Similarly, Van Lange et al. (1998) reported that a society with high social cohesion is more likely to use public transportation. Opting for and purchasing green products and supporting environmental charities are also more likely to occur in societies with people who trust one another (Gupta and Ogden, 2009; Sønderskov, 2008). Furthermore, studies have shown that unequal societies invest less in environmental research, policies and implementation (Magnani, 2000; Vona and Patriarca, 2011).

SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
In an early study conducted by Torras & Boyce (1998), social inequality was found to worsen air and water quality, particularly in low-income countries. Similarly, Scruggs (1998) found direct links between political inequality and ambient concentrations of SO2. Scruggs also found a relationship between income inequality and lower ambient particulate matter. Having examined 180 countries, Torras (2005) found power equality, occasioned by higher levels of educational attainment and literacy to be associated with better access to safe water and sanitation. Income inequality has also been associated with higher emissions of SO2 per GDP in developing countries (Drabo, 2011). Grafton & Knowles (2004) also reported an association between inequalities in wealth and SO2 concentrations, improved water quality and reduced biodiversity.
Environmental quality in Nigeria has been greatly compromised by the high level of inequality and low human development index. This high level of social inequality in Nigeria is caused by unequal income distribution, inequitable and inadequate access to job opportunities, education, and health care (Dawodu and Egharevba, 2021). Social inequality in Nigeria has been reported to be associated more with poor education plus poor basic infrastructure and less of low income/wealth (Boliar, 2010). Consequently, the rate of environmental degradation and by extension, biodiversity has been on the increase in Nigeria (Izah et al., 2018). Biodiversity is the totality of all life forms, animals, plants and microbes, their species, genes and variability within a natural ecosystem.

The natural ecosystem comprises different habitats which could be terrestrial, aquatic or arboreal. Nigeria has about 22,000 animal species, about 1,489 microbial species and about 7,895 plant species. The interaction between these diverse life forms is important for the stabilization of climatic and ecological processes.
Exploring the factors of biodiversity loss in Nigeria summarily points to biodiversity loss as a resultant effect of the high social inequality evident in Nigeria. These factors as examined by Izah et al. (2018) include flooding and soil degradation. While rainfall patterns and intensity are causal factors of excessive water flood events, social inequality occasioned by topography, land use pattern and lack of basic infrastructure like proper drainage systems are important causative factors. Other factors of biodiversity loss include deforestation, industrialization, urban pollution and bush burning which all have links to social inequality. Species diversity in Nigeria is reducing with several endangered species. The decline in plant biodiversity poses threats to traditional medicine, water resource and quality, animal diversity and the availability of timber for economic and construction purposes.

CONCLUSION
The decline in biodiversity calls for focus on environmental conservation and protection of threatened and endangered species. There are National parks dedicated to the conservation of natural ecosystems, plants and animals but these are fast eroding due to urbanization and negligence. Although evidence is limited and more research is needed, there are strong indications that reducing social inequality will help reduce the burden of conservation on the government as people will be more predisposed and empowered to make eco-friendly choices. Reducing social inequality will also help those who are most exposed to the devastating effect of pollutants and improve overall environmental quality.