It seems that the UN is endorsing the kind of reasoning that made medieval priests claim pestilence was due to human sins or modern fundamentalists that earthquakes due to gay marriage. Same bad logic and theology.
This is essentially a religious perspective. Which might be a fine belief to hold, but religious freedom means one can also reject it freely. A scientific perspective on the environment regards risks as amoral and applying no matter what you believe.
Since the virus emerged from too close contact with nature in a wet market, a reasonable (and ethical) response is to reduce such contact. But it has nothing to do with nature being in a corner.
Bad Anthropocene impacts such as e.g. biodiversity loss, climate change or pollution certainly have their own health effects, but they are causal (food insecurity, temperature, toxins) rather than having a normative step.
Were one to think natural disasters are punishments from nature for human activity, nature really seems to have it in for poor people in developing countries. Especially with unfree markets. Drawing normative conclusions from disasters tends to go badly.
