# data[].attributes.body
. Contamination is the process of a substance that should not be present naturally. It is a physical and biological component of the earth and atmosphere systems to such an extent that normal environmental processes are adversely affected; the burning of gas, coal and oil, for example is increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, altering the global climate and affecting human health

# data[].attributes.body
Global warming has been on a rapid increase for the past decade. The result of such rapid cooling on the planet is causing the ice in Greenland and Antarctica to melt faster than normal, which will cause major climate changes and floods. Global warming is caused from dust particles trapping heat into the atmosphere preventing the the cycle of how the earth stays cool by releasing heat into space and taking in cooler air. The dust particles is caused by the release of deadly gas and element particles into the atmosphere from plantations, the burning of garbage, and gas from vehicles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Pollution is the contamination of the environment by introduction of contaminants that can cause damage to environment and harm or discomfort to humans or other living species. It is the addition of another form of any substance or form of energy to the environment at a rate faster than the environment can accommodate it by dispersion, breakdown, recycling, or storage in some harmless form.

Environmental pollution is one the greatest challenges that the world is facing today. It began since industrial revolution, increasing day by day and causing irreparable damage to Mother Earth. Environmental pollution has its own causes, effects and solutions. Looking into these will help you identify the causes and what steps you can take to mitigate those effects. Broadly, environmental pollution consists of six basic types of pollution, i.e. air, water, land, soil, noise, and light.

When people think of environmental pollution, most focus on fossil fuel and carbon emissions, but there are different contributing factors. Chemical pollution in bodies of water contributes to illnesses. Electromagnetic pollution has effects on human health but is uncommonly considered in present times despite the fact we essentially expose ourselves to it on a daily basis. Taking a look at causes and effects of environmental pollution will pull any mind on a rapid downward spiral. Solutions are in the works and, if we work together across the world, there is hope remaining, at least for the time being.

The environment will continue to deteriorate until pollution practices are abandoned.
~ B. F. Skinner

Causes of Environmental Pollution

Pollution from cars, trucks, and other vehicles is and has been our major environmental pollution issue for almost a century now. The problem is we did not realize this until the problem had manifested to monumental proportions.

Fossil fuel emissions from power plants which burn coal as fuel contributed heavily, along with vehicles burning fossil fuels, to the production of smog. Smog is the result of fossil fuel combustion combined with sunlight and heat. The result is a toxic gas which now surrounds our once pristine planet. This is known as "ozone smog" and means we have more problems down here than we do in the sky.

Carbon dioxide is another product from all of the vehicles on the planet as well as unreformed power plants and other industrial facilities. A continually growing population of humans and clear cutting of forests has exacerbated this problem so natural defenses are no longer present and carbon dioxide levels are on the rise.

Water pollution is a major issue. Many industries dump wastes into rivers, lakes, ponds, and streams in an attempt to hide wastes from EPA inspectors. These water sources feed major crops and food becomes contaminated with a variety of chemicals and bacteria, causing rampant health problems.

Radiation comes into play as well. This is an exceedingly nasty pollution issue and requires extensive description. Primarily, there is radiation from the sun. As the natural ozone layer around the Earth has become depleted. The sun is wonderful, but the only reason we are able to survive on this planet so close to the sun is due to the fact of natural shielding against solar radiation. As the protective ozone layer around the planet has become thinner, ultraviolet radiation has risen significantly, causing increases in skin cancers and other types of cancer in all countries, killing millions of people every year.

More radiation is a problem. The sun shining brightly on a naked planet is not the only source of radiation we are exposed to. Electromagnetic radiation is another insidious culprit. Once upon a time, the major concern around this type of radiation was due to high tension wires which carry huge amounts of electricity to cities. Now, we even carry sources of this radiation with us as cell phones, laptops, tablets and other wireless devices.

Effects of Environmental Pollution

The polluting gases mentioned above have an interesting effect on climate. Essentially, these gases form a veil around the planet which holds heat in, increasing the overall temperature of the planet. The rise in planetary temperature, or global warming, is not immediately noticeable. However, even a rise of a few degrees Centigrade causes catastrophic changes in weather. This is happening now.

Pollen has increased. It is ironic, but even with fewer trees in the world; the increase of carbon dioxide emissions induces plants such as ragweed and many trees to produce more pollen than ever before. This has resulted in rampant allergies across the world, affecting the health of billions of people.

One of the solutions to tamp out carbon monoxide emissions from coal burning power plants was and still is to use radioactive power plants. While this does cut down on gas emissions significantly, there is radioactive waste which causes various cancers to bloom in major cities and small towns all around while destroying ecosystems entirely.

Global temperature has risen significantly over the years. The protective atmosphere is further being polluted by methane gas released from melting icecaps. This is causing rampant weather issues around the planet.

This all seems like a fairly bleak outlook for the planet and all the creatures on it. It is, in fact, a load of dark and very real truth. For much of it, there is little turning back. Being realistic, though solutions are in the works to combat global warming, the hope is dim. Radiation does not go away quickly either, especially in a technological age requiring more power, more gas, and intensified depletion of protective gases around the planet. We are on a significant downhill snowball ride to hell. There are things we can do. Let us take a look at some of the solutions which are currently being implemented to reduce pollution.

Solutions to Environmental Pollution

Gas emission pollution is being mitigated in a variety of ways with car emission control, electric and hybrid vehicles and public transportation systems. Not all major cities have successful implementation and decent public transportation in place, but the world is working on this issue constantly and we have managed to reduce emissions profoundly over the last decade. There is much catching up to do.

The cost of radioactive power plants is becoming apparent and the days of coal power plants are nearly dead. The radiation is a serious issue. Radioactive leakage from power plants and nuclear testing have already contaminated oceanic life to such a degree that it will take hundreds of years to return to normal. More radiation solutions are in the works with various ecologically friendly power technologies being built every day.

Solar power is a fantastic solution. Now that solar radiation is at a climactic peak, we can reap power from the sun using solar panel systems. These range from home systems to larger scale systems powering entire communities and cities.

Wind power is coming into play. This may not seem like much at first, but when you get about 100 feet off the ground, there is a great deal of wind up there. By building wind turbines to harvest natural wind energy, electricity is produced. Wind turbine power and solar power are both powerful forces against fossil fuel power and radioactive power. The one problem here is power companies. They want to stay with radioactive power plants because they actually can't be removed. It has become the crusades of many individuals and small corporations to make the switch and there are plenty of people following this as populations cry out for help.

Electromagnetic radiation (ER) reduction. Once major manufacturers of computers and electronic devices realized the blatant potential for huge ER emissions directly into the eyes and brains of users, they started to implement hardware protocols to minimize risks and reduce ER production significantly. Newer devices are in the lead to knock this problem out and, fortunately, this is working.

Also, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is well aware of all leaks and tricks industries are using to dump wastes. This agency now has extremely strict protocols and testing procedures implemented against such facilities so populations are not affected. Additionally, the EPA is measuring air pollution and implementing regulatory procedures for vehicle emissions. They also monitor pollen issues and, with the help of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), they implement solutions to reduce pollen in the air.

Dropping pollen counts is a major focus for EPA and CDC activities. Asthma and other allergic conditions are flooding medical care facilities and pharmaceutical companies with serious public health problems. The response has been swift and various methods to control emissions and reduce pollen counts are in the works. Children and elderly people are at the highest risk for environmental pollution related health problems. The good news is we are directly on the horizon to cut down the causes and risks while providing practical health solutions for the general public throughout the world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Causes, Effects and Solutions to Environmental Pollution | Earth Eclipse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pollution is the contamination of the environment by introduction of contaminants that can cause damage to environment and harm or discomfort to humans or other living species. It is the addition of another form of any substance or form of energy to the environment at a rate faster than the environment can accommodate it by dispersion, breakdown, recycling, or storage in some harmless form.

# data[].attributes.body
Twenty-eight thousand people died prematurely each year in the European Union because of pollution; it was also causing one hundred thousand early deaths per year in 2002, this was more than AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome), breast cancer and prostate cancer put together. Destruction of the environment can lead to respiratory diseases associated with contamination and the spread of infectious diseases associated with pollution, deforestation and biodiversity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Here's how plastic bags impact the environment

# data[].attributes.body
Human encroachment on wildlife habitats is causing a rapid loss of biodiversity that threatens food security, population health and world stability. Biodiversity has declined twenty-seven percent in the last thirty-five percent; climate change also has a major contribution to biodiversity loss, as some species are not able to adapt to changing temperatures.  The basic goal of biodiversity conservation is to maintain naturally occurring ecosystems, communities and native species. Biodiversity depends upon the variety of species adapted to a specific ecosystem.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
earth just experienced one of the warmest years on record - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Earth just experienced one of the warmest years on record

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
2018 was the fourth-hottest year ever recorded, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA, which means that the past five years have been the five warmest years in the modern record.

# data[].attributes.body
Reducing deforestation is another solutions for environmental contamination. Forests are important to mitigating climate change because they serve as “carbon sinks meaning they absorb carbon dioxide that otherwise would escape into the atmosphere and worsen global warming. It’s estimated that fifteen percent of total greenhouse gas emissions come from deforestation; cutting down trees also threatens animals and humans who rely on healthy forests to sustain themselves

# data[].attributes.headline
Solution to Environmental Contamination  

# data[].attributes.subject
Solution to Environmental Contamination  

# data[].attributes.body
Solutions to environmental contamination; reducing pollution, reducing deforestation and protecting biodiversity in raising the world's awareness not just making it better for today but for tomorrow. Protect biodiversity by taking some simple steps by purchasing products that do not harm the environment; next time at a grocery store, check to see if food packaging contains any eco-labels. Also reusing, recycling and compositing are easy ways to protect biodiversity

# data[].attributes.body
Cutting down about seventeen percent of the Amazon rain forest for the past fifty years to make way for cattle ranching, that’s a double blow for the climate because cattle flatulence is a major source of methane gas, which contributes more to short term climate change than carbon emissions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Oil impacts to the beach environment of Grand Isle, Louisiana. Oil and other chemicals can get into sediments, impacting large coastal areas, threatening human health, and reducing the economic well being of regions that depend on a healthy coastal environment.

Our ocean and coastal areas provide us with a lot - from food, places to boat and swim, and wildlife to enjoy...the list goes on. So when these areas become polluted and unhealthy, it isn't just bad for the environment, it's also bad for us. At NOS, scientists, economists, and other experts are busy monitoring, assessing, and working to clean up contaminants in the environment.

The source

A wide range of chemicals can contaminate our water, land, or air, impacting the environment and our health. Most contaminants enter the environment from industrial and commercial facilities; oil and chemical spills; non-point sources such as roads, parking lots, and storm drains; and wastewater treatment plants and sewage systems. Many hazardous waste sites and industrial facilities have been contaminated for decades and continue to affect the environment.

The impact

Contaminants in the environment can look and smell pretty nasty, but their impacts go beyond just aesthetics. Some pollutants resist breakdown and accumulate in the food chain. These pollutants can be consumed or absorbed by fish and wildlife, which in turn may be eaten by us. Chemicals can also get into sediments, impacting large coastal areas, threatening human health, and reducing the economic well being of regions that depend on a healthy coastal environment.

Evaluation tools

Being able to clean up and restore areas that have been impacted by contaminants requires tools tailored to the needs of specific regions. NOS has developed a range of tools to help coastal communities meet their needs. For example, following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill incident in the Gulf of Mexico, NOAA worked with partners to launch the Environmental Response Management Application (ERMA®) Gulf Response, an online mapping tool that delivers environmental resource managers the near-real-time information and data necessary to make informed decisions for environmental response. The site uses the Environmental Response Management Application, a web-based geographic information system platform developed by NOAA and the University of New Hampshire's Coastal Response Research Center. NOS also offers a number of assessment tools and guidance to help coastal decision makers understand the implications of contaminated sediments.

Testing toxicity

Harmful chemical pollution and excess nutrient runoff are serious threats to the coastal environment. NOS scientists are conducting research to help detect and predict how this pollution will impact coastal resources. For example, at the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, scientists are evaluating the effects of single contaminants and contaminant mixtures, conducting toxicity-testing with single species, and conducting research in controlled conditions to assess contaminant impacts on biological communities. Scientists are also looking at how environmental and human stressors impact bottlenose dolphin populations.

Responding to contaminants

When contaminants threaten or harm aquatic species, make them unsafe to eat, or degrade their habitat, NOS experts work with partners to evaluate risks and injuries, develop strategies to reduce contaminant loads, and reduce the risk to species. The experts also monitor the effectiveness of cleanup actions and design and implement projects to restore natural resources. At larger waste sites and after oil spills, NOS scientists and economists conduct natural resource damage assessments to determine the nature and extent of harm to natural resources and restoration necessary to bring the resources to a healthier state. NOS works with the parties responsible for the contamination to ensure that injured coastal and marine resources are restored.

Nonpoint pollution

When pollution comes from a source that can't be tied to a specific location, we call it "nonpoint source pollution." This kind of pollution occurs when leaking septic tanks or stormwater runoff that has picked up things like sediment, fertilizer, pet waste, or oil drain into streams and rivers that empty into our estuaries and coastal waters. To address this polluted runoff, NOAA and the Environmental Protection Agency jointly administer the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. Under the program, all states and territories with approved coastal zone management programs are required to develop and implement coastal programs to reduce the amount of nonpoint source pollution entering our waterways.

What you can do

Did you know that YOU could be contributing to some of the pollution that reaches our waterways? There are many things all of us can do to reduce contaminants in our environment, including:

Plant grass, trees, and shrubs in bare areas to reduce and absorb runoff, reduce erosion, and improve habitat.

Properly dispose of pet waste, motor oil and household chemicals.

Use fertilizers and pesticides sparingly on lawns and gardens.

Keep trash out of storm drains, where it will clog up the drain or end up in the nearest stream or lake.

Organize neighborhood cleanups.

Maintain your car to prevent oil leaks.

Consider purchasing and using less-toxic household chemicals.

Recycle plastic, glass, and paper.

Get Social

More Information

Did you know?

Eighty percent of pollution to the marine environment comes from the land. One of the biggest sources is called nonpoint source pollution, which occurs as a result of runoff.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
national oceanic and atmospheric administration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A wide range of chemicals can contaminate our water, land, or air, impacting the environment and our health. Most contaminants enter the environment from industrial and commercial facilities; oil and chemical spills; non-point sources such as roads, parking lots, and storm drains; and wastewater treatment plants and sewage systems. Many hazardous waste sites and industrial facilities have been contaminated for decades and continue to affect the environment.

# data[].attributes.body
Biodiversity is the key indicator of the health of an ecosystem; Those ecosystems that clean the world’s environment, water, purifying the air, maintaining the soil, regulating the climate, Recycling nutrients, providing the world with food, raw minerals and resources for medicines and other purposes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CLOSE

If you think the weather has been crazy lately, just wait until global warming really kicks in.

A scientific study released Wednesday suggests that melting ice from the world's coldest regions such as Greenland and Antarctica could bring more extreme weather and unpredictable temperature changes around the world.

How will this happen? "According to our models, this melt water will cause significant disruptions to ocean currents and change levels of warming around the world," said the study's lead author, Nick Golledge of Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand.

He said this increased temperature variability in both the atmosphere and the oceans could result in more frequent extreme weather events.

The research predicts that in some parts of the world, hot and cold snaps will get longer and deeper, wet spells will get soggier and dry stretches will get longer, the Canadian Press reported.

A scientific study released Wednesday suggests that melting ice from the world's coldest regions such as Antarctica (above) and Greenland could bring more extreme weather and unpredictable temperature changes around the world. (Photo: Lucezn / Getty Images)

"Melt from these ice sheets is going to significantly disrupt the global climate, making temperatures in some areas vary much more from one year to the next," Golledge said. "This unpredictability is going to prove extremely disruptive for all of us and will make adaptation and planning much more difficult."

There was some potential good news in a second study also published Wednesday: Scientists in that study said that rising sea levels from the melting ice in Antarctica may not be as big of a threat this century than had been thought: "Unstable ice cliffs in Antarctica were proposed as a cause of unstoppable collapse of large parts of the ice sheet in the past," said the second study's lead author, Tamsin Edwards of King's College London.

"They were, therefore, also predicted to cause rapidly rising seas with global warming in our near future," he said. "But we've re-analyzed the data and found this isn't the case."

More: Yes, Chicago will be colder than Antarctica, Alaska and the North Pole on Wednesday

More: Antarctic sea ice melts to record low for January

More: Antarctic ice melting 6 times faster than it did in '80s

Scientists in the study predict that there is only a 5 percent chance that the Antarctic contribution to sea-level rise will exceed 15 inches by 2100. The most likely rise is about 5 to 6 inches.

However, such an increase would still wreak havoc on coastal cities around the planet. And unless greenhouse-gas emissions are reduced, the more extreme sea-level rise would be postponed, but not avoided.

Study co-author Natalya Gomez of McGill University in Montreal said that "water levels would not simply rise like a bathtub. Some areas in the world, such as the island nations in the Pacific, would experience a large rise in sea level, while close to the ice sheets the sea level would actually fall."

Golledge told National Geographic that "the sea-level estimates maybe aren't as bad as we thought, but the climate predictions are worse."

The studies were published Wednesday in the peer-reviewed British journal Nature.

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/02/06/global-warming-antarctica-greenland-ice-melting-could-spur-extremes/2791180002/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Melting ice from Greenland and Antarctica could cause more extreme weather

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CLOSE If you think the weather has been crazy lately, just wait until global warming really kicks in. A scientific study released Wednesday suggests that melting ice from the world's coldest regions such as Greenland and Antarctica could bring more extreme weather and unpredictable temperature changes around the world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Environmental crime is a complex and ambiguous term for several reasons. It is sometimes used as an umbrella term for crimes related to biodiversity, wildlife, animals, natural resources, hazardous waste, banned substances, and environmental quality, but scholars have also developed typologies to capture the unique dimensions of each form of environmental crime. Disagreements regarding whether to distinguish violations of environmental laws (addressed via civil prosecution or administrative actions) from environmental crimes (criminally prosecuted), and whether to also consider environmental harms (legal activities that harm the environment) or environmental risks produce further confusion. The range of offenders also complicates this concept, as individuals, groups/networks, and powerful organizations commit environmental crimes. The degree of harm created by each actor may, or may not, be equivalent.

Given the complexities of this area of study, scholars have developed and/or tested a wide range of theoretical perspectives on and interventions to address environmental crime. Consistent with conceptual disagreements, these theoretical frameworks and corresponding interventions vary (arguably the most) based on whether the dependent variable is environmental crime (as defined by law), or environmental harm or risk defined using other criteria. However, multiple theoretical perspectives/interventions are also examined within research on these broad categories of environmental crime, harm, and risk. In order to capture the breadth of research on environmental crime, we narrow the focus of this article to pollution related crimes (e.g., hazardous waste, banned substances, environmental quality). In the following article, we offer further detail regarding conceptual discussions, legal complexities, types of offenders, types of crime, and research on this subset of environmental crimes.

Narrative

Yet, understanding these issues can be challenging. Environmental crime is an ambiguous and complex term, in part due to the range of behaviors that fall within the concept. It is sometimes used as an umbrella term for crimes related to biodiversity, wildlife, animals, natural resources, hazardous waste, banned substances, and environmental quality (e.g., Clifford & Edwards, ; Shover & Routhe, ). However, scholars have also developed typologies to capture the unique dimensions of each form of crime. For example, White and Heckenberg () distinguish between the harms associated with "brown," "green," and "white" environmental issues. " Brown issues tend to be defined in terms of urban life and pollution (e.g., air quality); green issues mainly relate to wilderness areas and conservation matters (e.g., logging practices); and white issues refer to science laboratories and the impact of new technologies (e.g., genetically modified organisms)" (White & Heckenberg, , p. 69, emphasis in original). Environmental enforcement organizations make another set of distinctions. For example, the INTERPOL Environmental Crime Programme has three key areas: biodiversity, natural resources, and environmental quality (White, ). Crimes that impact biodiversity include illegal activities that remove flora and fauna from the natural environment; cruelty to animals; and illegal possession of wildlife, illegal trade, and exploitation (Nurse, ; Wellsmith, ). Natural resource exploitation refers to illegal logging, mining, and fishing. Crimes related to environmental quality, such as air pollution, soil contamination, and the illegal disposal of hazardous waste or banned substances are considered pollution crimes. In the following article, we focus on environmental quality or pollution crimes.

In addition to these philosophical questions, the environmental legal terrain creates confusion. Environmental laws are typically implemented by regulatory agencies and these agencies have the power to use different bodies of law to sanction offenders. Under administrative law, cases can be addressed internally by regulatory agencies (e.g., administrative actions), but cases can also be referred for civil prosecution. These issues are typically considered environmental "violations" or "noncompliance." However, many pieces of environmental legislation also contain provisions for the criminal prosecution of environmental "crimes" (Shover & Routhe, ; Uhlmann, ). Environmental legislation contains general criteria for criminal prosecution, but what criteria distinguish administrative, civil, and criminal cases is unclear in practice (Uhlmann, ). Further, academics disagree regarding whether administrative and civil violations should be studied alongside (or as) environmental crimes (Tappan, vs. Sutherland, ). Setting that issue aside, legal codes vary by jurisdiction, which especially complicates matters when examining environmental crimes that cross borders (i.e., transnational environmental crime). Finally, environmental law is unique in that a specified amount of harmful activity is permitted. For example, cutting down trees and polluting the air or water is allowed within a certain limit. To some, this suggests that environmental damage is something to be managed rather than an inherent wrong (i.e., mala prohibitum rather than malum in se) (White & Heckenberg, ).

Moving beyond the law, scholars have also argued that we should study environmental harms rather than environmental crimes defined by the legal code (White, ), or that we should study environmental risks in addition to environmental crimes (Gibbs, Gore, McGarrell, & Rivers, ), as many activities that damage the environment are legal. The variety of perspectives on what we should study (violations, crimes, harms, risks) results in many theoretical frameworks, approaches to research, and proposed and evaluated interventions. Therefore, sorting through the relevant research can be a challenge.

In the following article, we offer a road map through this confusing terrain. We begin with an overview of the types of legislation designed to protect the environment and the forms of regulation implemented to prevent/reduce pollution crimes. We next describe the types of environmental crimes that occur, the types of entities that violate these laws, potential explanations for these crimes, and offer a brief review of ongoing research. We conclude with a list of key sources for further study on this topic.

The Legal Context

The laws referenced above have many provisions, but one important component is the establishment of a permitting system. Manufacturing facilities that pollute the air and/or water must apply for permits that place limits on pollution and establish a schedule to monitor pollutant levels and report the results to the relevant regulatory agency to assess compliance. Similarly, the RCRA establishes a permitting and monitoring system to track hazardous waste from "cradle to grave." In addition, the CERCLA, a supplement to RCRA, created a special tax on the petroleum and chemical industries, as well as a general environmental tax to create a "Superfund" to remediate or remove abandoned and inactive hazardous waste disposal sites. Money from the Superfund can be used to pay for EPA cleanup and for the claims of private parties.

In addition to these pieces of legislation the EPA also regulates other areas of industry and development. For example, the Toxic Substances Control Act (1976) regulates the manufacturing, transportation, and sale of toxic chemicals. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (1947) governs the manufacturing and sale of pesticides. Development projects are monitored through the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), which requires environmental assessments for new projects. The Coastal Zone Management Act (1972) protects coastal regions from excessive and harmful development, and The Marine Protection Research & Sanctuaries Act controls the dumping of waste into the ocean. The EPA enforces some of these pieces of legislation in collaboration with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Table 1. U.S. Federal Legislation.

As previously stated, environmental legislation typically includes provisions for civil or criminal prosecution and also allows the agency to respond to violations internally via administrative law. When seeking civil or criminal prosecution, cases are referred to the Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resource Division (or regional U.S. states attorneys). Generally speaking (summarizing across pieces of legislation), environmental violations may be prosecuted criminally when they are (1) knowing, (2) negligent, or (3) endanger human life (Situ & Emmons, ). The courts have interpreted the "knowing" requirement as a showing of general intent. To obtain a criminal conviction, prosecutors must demonstrate that the defendant had a general awareness that he/she was dealing with a substance likely to be regulated and knowledge that a discharge was occurring. In contrast to traditional criminal law, the prosecutor does not have to establish specific intent. In other words, the prosecutor does not have to establish that the defendant premeditated to illegally dispose of regulated materials (Cooney et al., ). Cases may also be criminally prosecuted when a person fails to do what a "reasonable person" would do in the same circumstances. In other words, criminal prosecution can be based on negligence, or a lack of "due care." Finally, cases may be subjected to criminal prosecution if human life is knowingly or negligently placed in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, regardless of whether injury actually occurred (Situ & Emmons, ). In essence, the standards of proof in environmental law more closely resemble strict liability than traditional intent (Mandiberg, ). EPA guidance encourages prosecutors to consider the level of environmental harm and culpable conduct to make decisions regarding civil vs. criminal prosecution (Devaney, ). In practice, cases with deceptive or misleading conduct, plants operating outside of the regulatory system, and those that present a threat of significant harm to the environment or public health are more likely to be criminally than civilly prosecuted (Uhlmann, ).

The Department of Justice has used these provisions to prosecute companies and individuals for violations of environmental law. A corporation may be held criminally liable for the actions of its employees if prosecutors can establish that (1) the acts were done on behalf of the company, and (2) the acts were within the scope of the employee's authority (Cooney et al., ). Under the "responsible corporate officer" provision, responsible individuals in the company can also be prosecuted. The individual must be a (1) corporate officer who is (2) directly responsible within management for the conduct in question, and (3) knew that the type of improper activity was occurring. In addition to the responsible corporate officer doctrine, individuals in the company may be held criminally liable if there is direct evidence of intent or willful blindness (or conscious avoidance) of knowledge of the issue (Cooney et al., ). Although CEOs may be held criminally liable, small companies and low- and mid-level managers are more often convicted for environmental violations at the federal level (Cohen, ; Uhlmann, ). It is unknown to what extent people who engage in environmental crime outside of their employment context are prosecuted.

Self-regulatory approaches include voluntary commitments, such as the EPA's Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) 33/50 Program in which companies could volunteer to reduce legal toxic emissions for 33% by 1992 and 50% by 1995. Economic instruments are also used to provide flexibility and incentives to regulated entities to comply and improve environmental performance beyond the minimum legal requirements. For example, the Acid Rain Program, which was designed to reduce the sulfur and nitrous oxide discharges responsible for acid rain, was the first large-scale environmental market in the world (Gunningham, ). In environmental markets, or "cap and trade" systems, regulated entities are issued a cap on emissions that specifies the amount of pollution they are allowed to emit. They are also either allocated or must buy credits, or rights to pollute a specified amount. On a regular basis (typically each year), companies must "surrender" (to the government agency) credits equivalent to the amount of their emissions. These credits can be traded like a currency, so those who have extra credits can sell them to entities that need more credits to cover their cap. Therefore, companies have a financial incentive to reduce emissions below their cap, as they can profit from the sale of credits.

Despite this discussion of the "EPA approach" and its limitations, many other agencies also have responsibilities related to environmental noncompliance. For example, the Department of Energy is tasked with addressing environmental violations at nuclear energy facilities (Clifford & Edwards, ). In addition to the federal distribution of responsibilities, the EPA has also delegated the authority to enforce federal laws to many state environmental regulatory agencies. In fact, the states actually conduct the bulk of environmental monitoring and enforcement (Burns et al., ; Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), ), sometimes investigating cases in collaboration with regional EPA investigators and prosecuting offenders through the State Attorney General's office (Rivers, Dempsey, Mitchell, & Gibbs, ). Traditional police officers also play a role in environmental enforcement (Carter, ; Situ & Emmons, ). For example, state troopers are often the first to discover violations of RCRA regulations in the form of unpermitted transfer of hazardous waste on state highways (Edwards, ). Thus, although EPA is the lead agency, environmental enforcement in the United States is actually achieved through a complex array of different types of agencies at different levels of government.

The International Legal Context

Outside of the United States, other countries have similar environmental agencies and domestic legislation. For example, the legal framework of Environment and Climate Change Canada (Canada's environmental protection agency) includes the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (1999) and the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act (1985), both dedicated to protecting ecosystems and people from pollution and potential harm. In the United Kingdom the Environment Agency is responsible for regulating and monitoring water quality, industry and waste, conservation and ecology. On a regional scale, countries within the European Union are required to comply with over 200 pieces of legislation dedicated to the protection of the environment, with member state compliance enforced by the European Court of Justice (EU, ).

In addition to the complex patchwork of environmental enforcement in the United States and other countries, international laws, treaties, and organizations are also relevant to environmental regulation. The United Nations (UN) is the primary international organization to facilitate these treaties. When international treaties are signed by a minimum number of countries, they are supposed to be implemented in those countries via domestic law (UN, ). In the United States, for example, if a president signs these treaties, new legislation has to be introduced as a bill, passed in the House and Senate, and signed by the president (U.S. Senate, ).

There are numerous international environmental treaties. In general these treaties regulate the emission and/or international trade of a specific category of pollutants. Some of the major treaties designed to control or reduce pollution include the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, the Basel Convention on Transboundary Shipments of Hazardous Waste, the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Marrakech Accords.

In addition to these treaties, a series of agreements have led to restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions responsible for global warming and climate change. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol (2005), and the Marrakech Accords have resulted in national caps on greenhouse gas emissions and a trading system (or market) in which credits for greenhouse gas emissions can be bought and sold. In other words, if countries emit more than their cap allows, they can purchase credits from other countries that emitted less than allowed. Member nations have implemented this cap and trade system by translating their caps to regulated companies through domestic legislation (Gibbs, Cassidy, & Rivers, ). These regulated entities may also engage in trading to achieve compliance.

Typology of Environmental Crimes

Environmental laws result in a variety of unique offenses that can be categorized in a number of different ways. The type of affected environment, such as air or water, can be used to categorize crimes. Many of the laws (such as the Clean Water Act or the Clean Air Act) follow this format, as they pertain to a particular type of environmental media. However, some crimes involve the simultaneous violation of multiple laws. Thus, there are circumstances when it is impossible to disentangle water pollution from soil pollution from air pollution (e.g., the dumping of toxic chemicals can contaminate soil, off-gas into the air, and eventually leach into the watershed). Alternatively, crimes can be categorized according to the type of pollutant involved, such as electronic or e-waste (i.e., broken or obsolete electronics), oil, or asbestos. Or, we can categorize a crime based on the disposal methods used, for instance dumping (toxic waste), mining, or spills. More broadly, environmental crimes can be organized by geography, such as domestic versus transnational environmental crime; or crimes committed across international borders (White, ). We will review some of the more prominent offense types, first looking specifically at water, soil, and air pollution, and then broadening to three common mechanisms of pollution, dumping, mining, and oil spills. We will finish our discussion with a brief overview of transnational crime.

Similarly, air pollution offenses can have detrimental effects through the release of toxins into the air, resulting in poor air quality and/or acid rain. One of the most tragic cases of air pollution involved the manufacturing of the pesticide Sevin, by Union Carbide in Bhopal, India. In 1984 a quarter of the city's population was exposed to a toxic gas that escaped from a storage tank; approximately 5,000 people died in the first two days alone, with a final death count around 20,000 people (Varma & Varma, ). While this is an extreme case, in many urban centers people live day to day with poor air quality. Breathing polluted air, especially during exercise, can have severe adverse health impacts and reduce quality of life (Li et al., ). Incidents of extreme smog advisories highlight the potential damage of air pollution, not just to the environment, but also on daily life.

In addition to these domestic cases, environmental crimes can also be transnational. Transnational environmental crime has been broadly defined as an act that is against the law, crosses international borders, and results in an environmental crime (White, ). Further defining transnational crime is challenging, as academics disagree as to what bodies of law are relevant. Elliott () argues that any movement of wastes across borders in contravention of international agreements or domestic laws represents transnational environmental crime, whereas enforcement organizations rely on criminal laws to define transnational environmental crimes. However, because not all acts that cause harm to the environment are illegal, some green criminologists argue that harms should also be included in transnational crime (White, ). Regardless, these crimes often involve sophisticated networks and opportunistic traders who take advantage of ports where surveillance and enforcement are lax, and frequently take complex routes through multiple countries to avoid detection (Elliott, ).

It is important to understand these crimes for several reasons. Some trade statistics and seizure data suggest that transnational environmental crime is increasing (United Nations Environment Program and INTERPOL, ). In addition to this potential growth, transnational crimes can be considered especially egregious because they reflect the global imbalance of power, with unscrupulous offenders taking advantage of less developed countries with weak environmental laws or corrupt enforcement systems (White, ). This can lead to the improper disposal of hazardous chemicals in vulnerable developing countries (White, ). For example, in 1986 a ship, Khian Sea, containing toxic ash with heavy metals, left Philadelphia. After sailing for 2 years, 11 countries had refused to take the contents of the ship, so they eventually dumped their cargo in Haiti and between Singapore and the Suez Canal (Klenovšek & Meško, ). In a similar 2006 incident, the Trafigura dumped 600 tons of caustic soda and petroleum residue around the capital city of the Ivory Coast (White, , ). The ship, originating in the Netherlands, had been rejected by multiple countries before being covertly unloaded in the middle of the night by a disposal company named "Tommy," which was formed for the sole purpose of disposing of the ship's waste (White, , ). This crime involved a number of actors from different countries; the ship was built in Korea, owned by Greeks, registered in Panama, and manned by a crew of Russians (Klenovšek & Meško, ).

Typology of Environmental Criminals/Offenders

Environmental offenses may be committed by a variety of different types of offenders. Though the law recognizes offender types to differing degrees that vary by jurisdiction, the environmental offender profile is markedly diverse. Differences in the characteristics of various types of offenders can be quite unique. Therefore, understanding the differences is key to not only describing the crime, but also developing crime prevention strategies. Building on the work of Situ & Emmons (), offenders can be grouped into a five-category typology: individuals, groups, governments, businesses, and state-corporate crime.

Individual/Personal Offenders

Individual, or "personal" offenders, refers to those who commit environmental crimes outside of their workplace (Situ & Emmons, ). These individuals rarely have criminal backgrounds, and in many cases do not believe that they are committing a crime, especially when there is little social stigma attached to their actions (Situ & Emmons, ). In regard to pollution, "household crimes" and "recreation crimes" are linked to individual environmental offenders (Situ & Emmons, ). The specific actions that constitute household crimes vary by jurisdiction, but may include: dumping paint and other chemicals down the drain; improper disposal of batteries, electronic devices, or appliances; illegally piping home sewage into waterways; or ignoring drought limits on water use (Situ & Emmons, ). This category may also include illegally dumping tires (Clifford, ) or crimes committed through recreational activities, such as failing to remove waste while camping (Situ & Emmons, ).

Group Offenders

Additional research suggests that more elaborate networks are also involved in environmental crime. In reference to wildlife crime, White (, p. 92) states that moving specific commodities around the globe requires "an integrated network that links the point of origin to the point of sale, even though the gatherers/producers and consumers/clients may be disparate and unconnected" (see also Ayling, ). More generally, transnational environmental crimes include smaller crimes (e.g., smuggling, corruption, fraud, tax evasion, money laundering) that occur through complex transactions between informal networks across multiple geographic boundaries (Elliott, ; White, ). In addition, academics, government officials, and non-governmental organizations report "multi-commodity smuggling" in which traffickers use the same trade routes to illegally move drugs and wildlife (South & Wyatt, ). Although the specific nature of networks involved in the illicit trade in pollutants or wastes are not well understood (see, e.g., Gibbs et al., ), given what is required for these crimes to occur, more complex networks or interconnected nodes are likely involved.

Governments

Governmental environmental crime can at first glance seem counterintuitive, as the government is supposed to enforce the laws. However, there are circumstances where governmental organizations do not comply with, or fail to enforce the law, thereby causing environmental harm. For example, there have been numerous incidents of municipal waste treatment plants illegally dumping untreated sewage into lakes and rivers (Clifford & Edwards, ). Similarly, governmental bodies are often responsible for the improper disposal of trash resulting in contaminated soil and toxic gas emissions (Clifford & Edwards, ).

However, the EPA can prosecute individuals within federal agencies who fail to act despite knowledge of violations (Clifford & Edwards, ). In addition, several environmental laws (e.g., CAA, CWA) include provisions for citizen suits against the government ( https://www.epa.gov/noi). States may also sue federal EPA. For example, in Massachusetts v. EPA, several states and cities filed suit against EPA for failure to regulate greenhouse gases under the CAA (Greenhouse, ). Conversely, 26 states have since sued EPA to block new regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector known as the Clean Power Plan (Meyer, ). Finally, federal EPA may hold states and municipalities accountable for failure to comply with federal legislation (Clifford & Edwards, ).

The recent water crisis in Flint, Michigan, spans these two forms of government crime, as it included both acts of omission and commission. Residents of Flint were exposed to lead through their drinking water after a state-appointed emergency manager changed the city's primary water source from Lake Huron to the Flint River without adequate preparation to address the corrosivity of the water. The water corroded public and private lead service lines and plumbing, resulting in lead contaminated drinking water. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (and later the U.S. EPA) and the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services failed to adequately enforce drinking water regulations and protect human health, but also actively sought to discredit community member and academic claims regarding the water problem (Flint Water Advisory Task Force, ). This example reflects the human health implications of failure to comply with environmental regulations. Given the racial and economic composition of Flint, it also represents a clear instance of environmental injustice (Flint Water Advisory Task Force, ).

Theoretical Perspectives

The vast and complex nature of environmental crime obliges scholars to take a number of theoretical approaches. These theories are tied to differing ideas regarding how to conceptualize environmental problems. For example, some have used legal codes to define environmental crimes as a violation of statutes designed to protect the ecological and physical environment (Clifford & Edwards, ; Shover & Routhe, ). Domestic legislation and/or international treaties are then used to further identify specific types of environmental crime. Most scholars include administrative or civil "violations" or "noncompliance" as forms of environmental crime in addition to cases prosecuted under criminal law.

Studies using legal definitions of environmental crime often draw upon preexisting theoretical frameworks in criminology to understand this form of crime. As summarized in Table , scholars have used deterrence theory to examine whether the severity and certainty of government sanctions reduce environmental offending (Gray & Shimshack, ). Through the subjective expected utility theory, others have elaborated on rational choice theory to understand environmental offending (Paternoster & Simpson, ). Rational choice theory presumes that although not perfect decision makers, people generally weigh the costs and benefits of various behavioral options and choose the course of action that has the most personal benefit (Clarke & Cornish, ). Extensions of rational choice to corporate environmental crime have examined how managers consider the costs and benefits to themselves and the company to make decisions (Simpson, ).

In addition to theories of environmental crime, scholars have also developed perspectives on compliance and overcompliance (e.g., polluting less than legally allowed) with environmental regulations. Scholars have suggested that the worldviews of environmental managers (e.g., the social license theory), individual norms, or corporate culture might produce these outcomes. For example, Vandenbergh () developed a typology of individual norms of compliance to understand why individual managers make decisions to comply. Others have theorized that corporate citizenship, or the degree to which firm culture promotes a broader commitment to society, may explain overcompliance (Gibbs, ).

Table 2. Theories of Corporate Environmental Crime/Compliance/Overcompliance.

Decisions made by corporate managers are influenced by different licenses to operate that represent the needs of stakeholders from the legal, social (activists, communities, public), and economic (company profits, investment) domains (Thornton et al., ).

Scholars have also developed theoretical perspectives on how to improve environmental regulation, as summarized in Table . For example, Smart Regulation highlights the importance of combining multiple regulatory instruments (e.g., command-and-control regulation, economic incentives, certifications) and multiple "regulators" (e.g., third parties, self-regulation) with government intervention. Single interventions are unlikely to succeed, as each type of policy has weaknesses. Instead, complementary methods of addressing problems must be used concurrently such that one instrument compensates for the weaknesses of another (and vice versa). Smart Regulation requires flexibility, as solutions must be tailored to address the specific problem at hand (Gunningham & Grabosky, ).

Table 3. Theories of Regulatory Governance.

However, the use of strict and socio-legalist definitions of environmental crime and related interventions have been criticized for failing to recognize the impact of power on environmental law (see, e.g., Halsey, ). To address this problem (i.e., that many activities that threaten the environment are legal), some argue that scholars should study environmental harms (e.g., Lynch, ; White, ). For example, Herbig and Joubert () defined conservation crime as "any intentional or negligent human activity or manipulation that impacts negatively on the earth's biotic and/or abiotic natural resources, resulting in immediately noticeable or indiscernible (only noticeable over time) natural resource trauma of any magnitude" (p. 96). Despite the use of this broader definition of environmental harm, many scholars still use the term "crime" to describe these behaviors to convey the seriousness of legal activities that harm the environment. The theoretical frameworks associated with this approach are summarized in Table .

The initial research on environmental harms drew upon critical perspectives that identify power differentials and inequalities as the primary driver of environmental harm (Lynch, ; White, ). These scholars have used ecocentric approaches to define activities that have "identifiable environmental damage" (Lynch & Stretesky, , p. 227). Consistent with this critical and political approach, this area of study was coined as "green criminology." Early green criminologists argued for the study of harms to and regulation of the environment of wildlife to understand the influence of power dynamics on environmental destruction (Lynch, ). Green criminologists have since introduced more specific theoretical perspectives, such as political economy theories (e.g., ecological Marxism, treadmill of production) (Lynch et al., ). For example, the "treadmill of production" theory argues that environmental problems in modern societies are inevitable due to the reliance on continued economic growth through production and consumption (Schnaiberg, ). Continued growth drives resource extraction and pollution and the model predicts that environmental problems cannot be solved without radical alteration of the system of growth, production, and consumption (Schnaiberg, ).

Other critical perspectives have also been used to define and study environmental harm. For example, ecofeminism explores the similarities between harm to the environment and the patriarchal injustices experienced by women (e.g., Lane, ). Environmental racism/justice examines the imbalance of environmental harm across socioeconomic and racial divides (e.g., Bullard, ). Shifting away from the anthropomorphic perspective that prioritizes impacts on people, the Deep Ecology approach instead argues that nature and its complex systems should be the focus of inquiry (Naess, ). Scholars in this tradition have suggested a variety of solutions to environmental destruction, including a return to a hunter-gatherer society (Shepard, ) and allowing famine, disease, and conflict to reduce the human population (Ehrlich, ). State-corporate crime, or the notion that the symbiotic and interdependent relationship between the state and corporations is responsible for environmental harm, is also a critical perspective (Kramer & Michalowski, ; Tombs & Whyte, ).

Overall, scholars have used various philosophical perspectives to define and explain environmental harm. However, this approach was later criticized for artificially narrowing the focus to certain causes of harm (e.g., capitalism or population growth) and ignoring others (White, ). Each perspective also limits the potential solutions (e.g., overthrow capitalism; limit human population growth) without acknowledging that the solution may vary by problem and context (for further detail, see Gibbs, Gore, McGarrell, & Rivers, ; White, ).

Recent work indicates that scholars still disagree regarding the domain of this area of inquiry and the term that best captures it. For example, broader definitions of green criminology have recently been introduced. For some, the term now encompasses any analysis of environmental harm, environmental law, or environmental regulation (White & Heckenberg, ). However, this definition has not been universally adopted. Some scholars reject the expansion of the contours of green criminology, arguing that political economy theories must be used to study environmental harms under the umbrella of green criminology (Lynch et al., ). It may also be inconsistent with the dominant approaches in the literature. In descriptions of green criminology research, scholars state that "much of this work has been directed at exposing different instances of substantive social and ecological injustice. It has also involved critique of the actions of nation-states and transnational companies for fostering particular types of harm, and for failing to adequately address or regulate harmful activity" (White & Heckenberg, , p. 8). Rather than studying legally defined environmental crimes, a large portion of green criminology continues to draw upon philosophical perspectives on justice (e.g., environmental justice, ecological justice, species justice) to define activities as environmental harms (White, ). Therefore, the bulk of green criminology research uses critical perspectives and a definition of environmental harm based on a philosophical stance. Finally, other scholars disagree regarding the use of the term "green criminology" to describe all research on environmental crimes and harms. Herbig and Joubert () argue that the term is problematic because it is vague and associated with specific political perspectives, which will narrow the range of relevant issues. Some have instead used the conservation criminology to describe this area of research (Gibbs et al., ; Herbig & Joubert, ). Others have suggested that the term "environmental criminology" should be reclaimed from its association with the spatial study of criminal events (White, ).

Table 4. Perspectives on Environmental Harm.

An umbrella term under which illegal and legal environmental harms are studied using perspectives varying from anthropocentric (human centered) to an eco-centric (nature-centered) (Lynch & Stretesky, ; White, ).

Conclusion

( 1.) The division of labor between the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Fish and Wildlife Service and the organization of the U.S. Department of Justice's Environmental and Natural Resource Division ( https://www.justice.gov/enrd/organization-chart/chart) are largely consistent with these distinctions.

( 2.) Poaching falls under the wildlife crime umbrella and includes the illegal removal of wildlife from its natural habitat through activities related to sport, recreation, retaliation, profit or food consumption (Muth & Bowe, 1998; Eliason & Dodder, 1999, Crow et al., 2013; Moreto & Lemieux, 2015).

( 3.) Many academics have begun to use terms generally consistent with the organization of regulation and enforcement, distinguishing "wildlife crime" and "fisheries crime" (i.e., "natural resource crimes") from "environmental" or "pollution crime" (see e.g., Burns, Lynch, & Stretesky, 2008; Wellsmith, 2011).

( 4.) We begin with the United States legal system to provide a detailed example and a point of comparison for other legal systems. To offer a comprehensive description of this topic, we later describe the international legal context and provide examples of environmental crimes and environmental offenders from around the globe.

( 5.) Summary accomplishments published by the DOJ Environmental and Natural Resource Division do not distinguish between crimes committed within or outside of a business context. To the best of our knowledge, scholars have not conducted research on this topic. Therefore, we are unaware as to whether raw prosecution data could be sorted by employment status.

( 6.) These state agencies are also responsible for implementing state environmental laws, which are required to be equally or more stringent than federal standards (Clifford & Edwards, 2012).

( 7.) We note that our typology is specific to the pollution crimes discussed in this chapter. We encourage readers interested in wildlife crime to examine the offender types described by Nurse ( 2011), Ayling ( 2013) and Wyatt ( 2013).

( 8.) Research from outside of criminology has focused on violations by manufacturing facilities without consideration of the larger corporate context (e.g., Gray and Shimshack, 2011).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Environmental Crime - Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Environmental crime is a complex and ambiguous term for several reasons. It is sometimes used as an umbrella term for crimes related to biodiversity, wildlife, animals, natural resources, hazardous waste, banned substances, and environmental quality, but scholars have also developed typologies to capture the unique dimensions of each form of environmental crime.