# data[].attributes.headline
Oil and gas interests to get a seat at the table of North Dakota’s new environmental agency

# data[].attributes.subject
Oil and gas interests to get a seat at the table of North Dakota’s new environmental agency

# data[].attributes.body
A law passed by the state legislature last year establishing the creation of the North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality. The current environmental subsection will break off to form its own, independent agency, with the two main environmental advisory boards — focused on air pollution and water issues — merge to form one main board.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 2014, less than five years after horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing turned the hills and prairies of the Bakken formation into one of the busiest oilfields in the world, North Dakota had nearly 200 active wells operating throughout the state.

But trying to ensure that the rapidly expanding oil boom adhered to environmental laws fell to several different officials within multiple state agencies because North Dakota is one of the only states in the country that lacks a standalone environmental agency in charge of state-level regulations.

Only three other states lack an agency that deals exclusively with environmental protection: Kansas, Colorado, and South Carolina. North Dakota is the only state that doesn't even mention the word "environment" in its agency's name - instead, environmental regulation is housed under the health department, while certain regulations are under the purview of the industrial commission.

That's set to change in 2019, thanks to a law passed by the state legislature last year establishing the creation of the North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality. The current environmental subsection will break off to form its own, independent agency, with the two main environmental advisory boards - focused on air pollution and water issues - merge to form one main board.

But if moving environmental protection under one agency means a more streamlined - and, supporters say, visible - presence for environmental regulation in North Dakota, it could also come with its own set of pitfalls. In creating a separate agency, the legislature also mandated that the environmental advisory board be filled with representatives from powerful industries like oil and gas - leaving some to fear that the new chapter of environmental protection in North Dakota will be open to political influence.

Inspecting the Bakken boom

According to David Glatt, the current environment section chief for the state's health department, the need for a separate environmental agency had been discussed for years, but became a pressing issue during the last oil boom, which saw hundreds of wells spring up across the Bakken formation starting in the late 2000s.

"When you're tied with a bigger department, like the health department, there are a lot of priorities competing for resources," Glatt told ThinkProgress. "By having our own agency, it allows us to set and identify our own priorities."

Not having an agency dedicated to environmental regulation isn't necessarily a problem, according to William Delmore, an attorney who worked for three decades in North Dakota environmental enforcement. At times throughout Delmore's career, he witnessed the head of the health department's environment subsection function as overall department head, placing an unwritten emphasis on environmental regulation and enforcement across the agency.

But when hundreds of oil wells sprung up across the state - bringing in tens of thousands of new workers and doubling oil output to more than 575,000 barrels a day in a the span of a few years - keeping environmental enforcement buried within the health department no longer seemed tenable.

"Overall, the Bakken oil play really coming into prominence, the environmental issues were raised to a higher level," Glatt said. "We really needed that visibility, not being buried in another agency but being our own agency, so people knew there was an environmental agency addressing [any issues]."

But if the Bakken oil boom emphasized the relative invisibility of the North Dakota environmental section, it revealed something else in harsh relief: the difficulty of keeping up environmental enforcement during an unexpected oil boom.

A 2012 ProPublica article detailing environmental enforcement during the Bakken boom noted that in 2011, oil companies reported more than 1,000 accidental releases of oil, drilling wastewater, or other fluids. Most of those spills were small, but some were quite large, totaling more than one million gallons. But between 2009 and 2012, environmental enforcement officers in the state issued fewer than 50 disciplinary actions for illegal drilling activities, including spills and accidental releases.

"I'm not sure anybody was prepared for the boom," Delmore said. "[The environmental section] certainly do not have the ability to inspect. They can't inspect the pipelines, they can barely look at individual job sites."

In comparison to other oil-producing states, like Oklahoma or Pennsylvania, North Dakota actually has a fairly high number of inspectors for every oil well (as of 2012, the state had 1 inspector for every 359 wells, according to E&E News). In 2011, the state legislature passed a law allowing the industrial commission to hire three more inspectors, and another two if the number of wells in the state were to reach 9,300. That would have translated to one inspector for every 372 wells - one of the best ratios in the country.

Still, thousands of spills in a single year - even small spills - takes its toll on the surrounding environment. Wastewater from hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is often high in salt and can be laced with carcinogenic chemicals and heavy metals. And while spilled oil eventually starts to break down organically, wastewater - and the associated chemicals - can persist for years in water and soil.

A standalone agency

In 2015, North Dakota's oil industry suffered a major downturn, precipitated by declining oil prices. But production in the Bakken region has started to pick up again, coinciding with the move to create a standalone department of environmental quality.

The bill creating the department passed easily in both the state house and senate, but not every lawmaker was supportive of the idea. In the senate, all nine Democrats voted against the bill, joined by seven Republicans. In the house, eight Democrats and 15 Republicans voted against the bill.

Chief among the criticism was the sense that the bill was rushed through the legislature, given only a 90-minute hearing in committee before being recommended for a full vote. But critics also worry about the bill's creation of a politically-appointed cabinet position - a DEQ secretary - as well as an advisory board of 13 representatives mainly from industry, which would help direct the department's priorities.

In an email to ThinkProgress, State Reprenstative Gretchen Dobervich (D), whose district includes Fargo, said that while the bill created another cabinet-level appointment and advisory board, it did little to ensure that those positions would be dedicated to environmental quality "assessment, policy or assurance."

"To date I have not found an advisory committee membership list, announcement regarding applying for membership or any meeting minutes of the committee," Dobervich, who voted against the bill, said.

Of the board's 13 members, only three - the state engineer, state geologist, and director of the North Dakota Game and Fish Department - would not be appointed by the governor. The remaining 10 positions - eight of which are set aside for industry representatives - are left to the governor's discretion, and thus open to political and private influence.

Industry influence

North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum (R) has a tech industry background and has claimed to be "independent of the special interests," though he comes from a family with financial ties to agribusiness. Burgum also received more than $100,000 in political donations from oil company executives during his gubernatorial campaign in 2016, despite claiming that oil company donations given to his Republican opponent in the primary constituted a potential conflict of interest problem.

"If you're a member of the [North Dakota Industrial Commission] and you're asking for someone's support and you regulate that industry and they know you're going to continue to regulate them, think about the power dynamic," Burgum told the Bismarck Tribune in May of 2016.

Still, Burgum's potential conflicts of interest seem to pale in comparison to former Gov. Jack Dalrymple (R), who shepherded the state through the oil boom of the late 2000s. While in office - and in charge of making certain regulatory decisions involving the oil and gas industry in the state - Dalrymple owned stock in Exxon, which in turn owned a company that sought permission to drill 100 feet from a national park.

Dalrymple's connections to the oil industry didn't end with his Exxon stock. In 2014, the New York Times reported that his 2012 reelection campaign received $550,000 from oil-related executives, lawyers, and political action committees, including $93,000 from companies directly related to a controversial oil production unit that Dalrymple signed off on while he was actively receiving campaign donations.

David C. Thompson, a lawyer in Grand Forks, North Dakota, told the Times that "our elected officials regulate companies they get contributions from and companies they own stock in."

But in forming a standalone DEQ advisory board with 10 slots open for political appointees, it won't just be elected officials regulating companies - it will be unelected citizens, chosen at the discretion of the governor, who will make decisions about the direction of environmental enforcement in North Dakota.

To some, the change would merely codify industry influence over environmental regulations. From Delmore's perspective, environmental enforcement in North Dakota - once rooted in science and law over politics - has become increasingly fraught in recent years, as industry and conservative interests have pushed to cast environmental regulation as an anathema to economic growth.

"If where you come from is more growth, more development, that's the way you're going to see environmental protection," Delmore said. "I never saw any of the divisions as wild treehuggers. They were doing their job, basing it off of data and national and state standards. But now, if anything is tried to be done enforcement wise, it's seen that way."

According to the Grand Forks Herald, environmental enforcement in North Dakota has fallen well below the national average, with just two percent of environmental violations met with enforcement (compared to 16 percent nationally). A 2011 report from the EPA's Office of Inspector General found that between 2003 and 2009, the state assessed no penalties against known violators of the Clean Water Act, and noted that the state is often "philosophically opposed" to issuing enforcement actions.

Glatt says that the philosophy of environmental enforcement in North Dakota isn't so much an opposition to penalties, but a preference for "compliance and communication."

Glatt said that environmental enforcement officers in the state try to make a point of getting out in the field and sitting down with industry, and that "90 percent of the time we come out with a good solution."

The environmental section, Glatt adds, "is very much tied to science and the law."

But some outside observers are concerned that the future DEQ - with a politically-appointed head and an advisory board with so many ties to industry - could change that culture.

"I think environmental enforcement in North Dakota has become too reliant on outside pressure," Delmore said. " It doesn't matter if you're a pro-industrial state or an anti-industrial state. If sulfur dioxide affects your lungs, it affects your lungs. It doesn't matter what you believe. It affects you and it affects your kids. And that's what you depend on environmental enforcers to protect you from."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Oil and gas interests to get a seat at the table of North Dakota's new environmental agency

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2014, less than five years after horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing turned the hills and prairies of the Bakken formation into one of the busiest oilfields in the world, North Dakota had nearly 200 active wells operating throughout the state.

# data[].attributes.headline
State Sen. Bush resolution urges Wisconsin to rethink environmental regulation cuts for Foxconn plant

# data[].attributes.subject
State Sen. Bush resolution urges Wisconsin to rethink environmental regulation cuts for Foxconn plant

# data[].attributes.body
The Senate resolution, passed by Illinois senators last week, also asks Illinois agencies to take whatever actions possible to protect against the loss of water, potential flooding and other ecological impacts that might result from the Foxconn deal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A new Illinois Senate resolution, sponsored by Sen. Melinda Bush of Grayslake, asks the Wisconsin state legislature to reconsider the state's abandonment of multiple environmental regulations to pave the way for the planned Foxconn plant near Racine.

Bush, a Democrat, said Monday Wisconsin's actions raise major concerns about flooding and air and water quality. For example, she said she's heard from several residents in Gurnee concerning the project's potential to worsen local flooding along the Des Plaines south of Racine.

"Obviously air quality is really important, but my biggest concern with this, if built, is that it will be able to skirt federal and state requirements and we will have more flooding," Bush said in her Grayslake office Monday.

Of considerable local concern is that part of the deal passed by the Wisconsin General Assembly allows Foxconn to fill wetlands without a permit, a reversal of longstanding multi-jurisdictional efforts to utilize wetlands located within the Des Plaines River watershed as a major tool to reduce river flooding.

Racine County, the Foxconn site and Lake County all sit in the Des Plaines watershed, Bush said, and flooding in the Des Plaines River watershed and throughout Lake County has caused billions of dollars in damage in recent years, including record flooding in July.

"The fact that Wisconsin leaders are willing to sacrifice the health of humans and the environment for jobs is unacceptable," Bush said. "Lake County residents deserve better. I hope Wisconsin leaders will put people before profits and reconsider the Foxconn deal."

The Senate resolution, passed by Illinois senators last week, also asks Illinois agencies to take whatever actions possible to protect against the loss of water, potential flooding and other ecological impacts that might result from the Foxconn deal.

Mike Warner, executive director of the Lake County Stormwater Management Commission, said that group is keeping a close eye on the Foxconn approval and development process.

"The Foxconn development site is in the headwaters of the Des Plaines River, so any impact (such as wetland filling) without mitigation would eventually come down into Lake County and affect us," Warner said Monday.

The resolution urges Wisconsin leaders to put more thought into the "serious environmental and public health concerns that may threaten Illinoisans" as a result of the planned Foxconn Technology Co. plant planned for Mount Pleasant, near Racine.

"The decisions from Wisconsin leaders and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to allow Foxconn to skirt environmental protections are irresponsible and short-sighted," Bush, a Democrat, said. "The environmental impacts don't stop at the Wisconsin border. Lake County residents will be affected, but because Foxconn is exempt from environmental regulations, we don't know the full impact."

Attempts Monday to reach Republican Wisconsin State Sen. Robert Wirch, whose district includes most of Racine, for comment on the Illinois Senate resolution were unsuccessful.

The resolution has the support of some environmental groups in Illinois, including the Illinois Environmental Council.

"With this resolution, Illinois commits to protecting people over profits, by not waiving similar environmental regulations for projects coming into our state," Colleen Smith, legislative director of the Environmental Council, said in a release.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency exemptions from environmental regulations for air quality also impact the planned $10 billion Foxconn Technology plant.

Filings with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources show that Foxconn would be a major new source of smog-forming pollution.

Foxconn, the Taiwanese maker of liquid-crystal displays such as those used in some flat-screen TVs, would also be given access to a considerable supply of Lake Michigan water.

Estimates have placed the expected water usage at the manufacturing plant at about 7 million gallons a day.
jrnewton@tribpub.com Twitter @jimnewton5

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
State Sen. Bush resolution urges Wisconsin to rethink environmental regulation cuts for Foxconn plant

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new Illinois Senate resolution, sponsored by Sen. Melinda Bush of Grayslake, asks the Wisconsin state legislature to reconsider the state's abandonment of multiple environmental regulations to pave the way for the planned Foxconn plant near Racine. Bush, a Democrat, said Monday Wisconsin's actions raise major concerns about flooding and air and water quality.

# data[].attributes.headline
Environmental group calls for new legislation on drinking water

# data[].attributes.subject
Environmental group calls for new legislation on drinking water

# data[].attributes.body
A local environmental group is urging state leaders to enact new legislation that would better regulate drinking water in Florida schools.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Environmental group calls for new legislation on drinking water

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By: Mariel Carbone | WCTV Eyewitness News June 5, 2018 TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (WCTV) - A local environmental group is urging state leaders to enact new legislation that would better regulate drinking water in Florida schools. "We have to have water for good health. We can't survive without it.

# data[].attributes.headline
Fossil Fuel Regulations Threaten Environmental Justice in Colorado

# data[].attributes.subject
Fossil Fuel Regulations Threaten Environmental Justice in Colorado

# data[].attributes.body
There's a mounting debate regarding state and local control over oil and gas development. Having spoken to people affected by fracking's spread, I believe it's clear why people are demanding a bigger say.A growing pool of scientific evidence indicates that living near oil and gas production can endanger public health.

# data[].attributes.headline
Idaho to take over water pollution regulation from EPA

# data[].attributes.subject
Idaho to take over water pollution regulation from EPA

# data[].attributes.body
The state Department of Environmental Quality will take over the regulation of pollutant discharge into Idaho's lakes and rivers starting July 1. DEQ head John Tippets said that the change will not result in Idaho's standards becoming more lax.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
BOISE -- Idaho will take over the regulation of pollutants dumped into the state's waterways, a process formerly controlled by the Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt appeared at the Idaho Statehouse alongside Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter to sign the agreement Tuesday afternoon.

"This truly is at the heart of cooperative federalism," Pruitt said. "Those in Congress who drafted the Clean Water Act, who drafted environmental statutes like the Clean Air Act, is that a one-size-fits-all issue, a one-size-fits-all approach, is not the proper way to address environmental issues."

The state Department of Environmental Quality will take over the regulation of pollutant discharge into Idaho's lakes and rivers starting July 1. DEQ head John Tippets said that the change will not result in Idaho's standards becoming more lax.

"We're required by law to be at least as stringent in our rules and regulations as the federal government is, as the EPA is," he said.

The Idaho Legislature would have to approve any attempts from the DEQ to make Idaho pollutant regulations tougher than those imposed federally. The EPA will still have oversight of the permit program.

Tippets did not give any specific examples of changes the DEQ will make after gaining primacy but said local officials are better prepared to handle the issues within their own state.

"The biggest change that we think Idahoans will see initially isjust a cooperative attitude and DEQ employees that are out looking to help them comply with the law and understand, rather than the enforcement approach that is typical of the EPA," he said.

Idaho is currently one of only four states that must deal with the federal government when getting a permit to dump water pollutants into waterways.

Pruitt, who has been under scrutiny amid allegations of misuse of his authority and taxpayer money, left directly after his prepared statements without taking any questions. He did not respond to shouted questions from reporters.

Protesters gathered outside the governor's office, loudly chanting their opposition to Pruitt.

Idaho's chapter of the Sierra Club also announced it's opposition tot he move in the form of a statement from Chapter Director Zack Waterman.

"It's important to remember today that while corporate polluters are causing harm to the health of Idaho's families and our clean air and water, Scott Pruitt is letting them off the hook while abusing taxpayer dollars and facing numerous corruption scandals," Waterman wrote. "Idaho deserves an EPA administrator who will support our clean energy and outdoor economy, but Scott Pruitt is putting himself and corporate polluters ahead of our health and our wild places."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Idaho to take over water pollution regulation from EPA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
BOISE -- Idaho will take over the regulation of pollutants dumped into the state's waterways, a process formerly controlled by the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt appeared at the Idaho Statehouse alongside Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter to sign the agreement Tuesday afternoon. "This truly is at the heart of cooperative federalism," Pruitt said.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why is deforestation happening and why are rain forests important?

# data[].attributes.subject
Why is deforestation happening and why are rain forests important?

# data[].attributes.body
Between 2000 and 2012, 2.3 million square kilometres (890,000 sq mi) of forests around the world were cut down. That has led to the devastation of several species of animal, flora, fauna and homes of indigenous tribes.

# data[].attributes.body
This reduction in CO₂, a greenhouse gas, acts to cool the climate. When trees are cut down, we lose their ability to draw down CO₂ – worse still, if they are burned the carbon they have carefully locked away will be released back into the air.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As well as removing CO₂ from the atmosphere, forests also have another, less obvious, influence on the Earth's climate. And, as deforestation continues a pace, we had better make sure we understand this says Dr Cat Scott
We know that trees and forests affect the climate in a variety of ways. They're constantly taking carbon dioxide out of the air and storing it in their roots, trunks and branches as they grow. Some of this carbon is released back into the air as the plants respire, but the overall effect is to remove CO ₂ from the atmosphere.

This reduction in CO ₂, a greenhouse gas, acts to cool the climate. When trees are cut down, we lose their ability to draw down CO ₂ - worse still, if they are burned the carbon they have carefully locked away will be released back into the air.

But in terms of the climate, that's not all forests are doing. The dark colour of trees means that forested parts of the Earth absorb more of the sunlight that hits them. The impact of trees' dark colour is most pronounced in the snowy regions of the planet where the contrast between white snow and dark green trees is stark. This is the "albedo" effect and the result is that forests at high northern latitudes exert a warming effect on the climate.

This means that the impact a forest has on the climate depends upon where it is on the planet. In particular, whilst forests in the tropics are thought to be strongly cooling the planet, forests in the snowy northern latitudes are having a slight warming effect.

Most previous assessments of the climate impacts of deforestation have focused on the amount of carbon dioxide that would be emitted, or changes to the way the land-surface exchanges energy and water with the atmosphere. In our recent study, published in Nature Communications ¹ we explored an additional impact that forests are having on the composition of the atmosphere. As well as taking in carbon dioxide and giving out oxygen, trees emit other gases that take part in complicated chemical reactions.

forests in the tropics are thought to be strongly cooling the planet, forests in the snowy northern latitudes are having a slight warming effect

These gases are called biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOCs) and they are responsible, among other things, for the characteristic smell of pine forests. The compounds are organics hydrocarbons and it takes plants quite a lot of energy to make these compounds, and it's not completely clear why they do it. Some suggest that they are used for plants to signal to one another, to protect against various stresses (attack from pests, high temperatures, or ozone damage), or to inhibit other competing plants from establishing nearby.

Once emitted into the air, these gases have a number of effects. They take part in complex atmospheric chemistry that can ultimately lead to an increase in the concentration of ozone and methane, which are both greenhouse gases. As with carbon dioxide, an increase in the concentration of these greenhouse gases will have a warming effect on the climate.

A sticky situation
We also think that BVOCs react and convert into more complex "sticky" gases that are able to clump together and form nanometre scale particles - aerosol - in the atmosphere. The exact identities of the molecules that have the potential to form particles are still under investigation, but it is thought that these biogenic gases are one of the important ingredients.

Although small, these particles are incredibly important for the climate because they influence the amount of the Sun's energy that reaches the Earth's surface. They do this in two main ways - firstly by simply reflecting some of the Sun's energy away (we call this a direct effect) or by brightening clouds (we call this an indirect effect). This second, indirect, effect occurs because once particles in the air grow to about 100 nanometres in diameter they are able to act as a nucleus for cloud droplets to form around (these are known as cloud condensation nuclei). The more cloud droplets there are in a cloud, the brighter it appears and the more of the Sun's energy it will reflect away. It is thought that the presence of particles in the atmosphere is masking some of the warming that would have occurred as a result of rising greenhouse gas levels over the past century. So, by emitting BVOCs and contributing additional particles, forests are able to have a cooling effect on the climate.

Greenhouse gases like ozone and methane that don't remain in the atmosphere for quite as long as CO ₂, together with particles, are collectively referred to as short-lived climate forcers (SLCFs). We know that forests are having some warming and some cooling effects due to short-lived climate forcers, but how do they balance out - and what does this mean for deforestation?

Get shorty
To explore this we used a series of complex computer models that represent different parts of the Earth system. First we use a model that simulates the surface of the Earth and the behaviour of different kinds of vegetation. We want to look at the impacts of deforestation so we do something very simple and convert all of the model's forests into grass. This is not to suggest that we think this is likely to happen, but it helps us to understand how big the impacts are. Using algorithms we can then calculate how much this conversion of trees to grass affects the emission of BVOCs.

We then take that information and pass it along to a model that tracks the movement and transformation of gases and particles in the atmosphere. This is a bit like dividing the air above you into a series of big cubes, we need to tell each cube what sort of gases and particles are going in, work out what happens to them when they're inside, and consider where they go next. We hundreds of use equations to work out how the particles are processed within the cube - which address many factors: do they grow bigger and then move on to the next cube? Is it raining, so the particles are washed out of the air before they can get to the next cube?

We found that by reducing the emission of BVOCs, deforestation reduced the levels of ozone and methane, thereby having a cooling effect on the climate (green and purple bars in Figure 1). But, the reduction in BVOCs also reduces the number of light-reflecting and cloud-brightening particles, which has a warming effect (red and blue bars in Figure 1). When we add the impacts of all the short-lived climate forcers together (orange bars in Figure 1), we see that the warming effect due to a reduction in particles dominates. The warming and cooling effects of these gases are most closely balanced in the tropics (bottom right panel of Figure 1) which is where most deforestation is occurring - suggesting that we really need to understand more about the strength of these impacts.

To understand the strength of the impacts due to changes in short-lived climate forcers, we need to compare them to the other effects of deforestation, such as carbon dioxide emission and change in surface albedo. We used estimates from a previous study to guage how much carbon dioxide would be emitted in each of our deforestation scenarios and a computer model to estimate the effect of changing from dark trees to lighter coloured grass. When we add these effects together, we find that including the effects of short-lived climate forcers increases the warming associated with global scale deforestation by about 10%.

Scientists have known for a long time that trees emit reactive gases to the atmosphere, but the impact of these gases has not been as widely studied as the other effects of deforestation. We need to understand these complex effects on the composition of the atmosphere to get a clearer picture of the impacts of deforestation and to formulate land-use change policy for the future.
Author
Dr Cat Scott is based at the Institute for Climate and Atmospheric Science, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As well as removing CO2 from the atmosphere, forests also have another, less obvious, influence on the Earth's climate. And, as deforestation continues a pace, we had better make sure we understand this says Dr Cat Scott We know that trees and forests affect the climate in a variety of ways.

# data[].attributes.body
Over the past few years, the South has become the world’s largest exporter of wood pellets to fuel power stations in Europe under the guise of “renewable” energy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mahatma Gandhi said, "What we are doing to the forests of the world is but a mirror reflection of what we are doing to ourselves and to one another." He also said, "The Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed."

In no place do these statements resonate more than in one of the world's largest wood-producing regions, the Southern US - where in recent years forest cover loss from large-scale industrial logging has been four times that of South American rainforests.

Healthy, intact forests provide critical life-supporting services. They ensure a steady and clean supply of drinking water, purify the air, provide natural flood control and create a space of beauty for spiritual renewal - services estimated to be 15 times greater than forests valued for wood products alone. Recent scientific studies have also underscored that letting forests grow to soak up carbon out of the atmosphere can help avoid catastrophic climate change.

Yet in the southern US, forests are being threatened today as never before, thanks to misdirected efforts by European nations that are importing our forests to burn for electricity on a growing scale. This is harming not only the health of the forests, but the well-being of the people who live in the communities around them.

Exploitation and Injustice

Over the past few years, the South has become the world's largest exporter of wood pellets to fuel power stations in Europe under the guise of "renewable" energy. Industry and government tout the wood pellet industry as providing "green, renewable energy jobs" despite scientific evidence that burning trees for electricity will exacerbate, not mitigate, climate change.

As a result, forest disturbance rates across the rural communities of the US Southern Coastal Plain are among the highest on the planet. This expansive economic exploitation has degraded our forests and our rural communities, disproportionately affecting low-income people and people of color in some of the poorest rural counties in the nation.

This rural landscape has a long history of forest destruction. Over the decades, tens of millions of acres of natural forests have been displaced by single-species tree plantations that are routinely sprayed with toxic herbicides and fertilizers. Remaining natural forests are degraded by logging. What were once large expanses of old, intact forests have been largely reduced to a patchwork of clearcuts, pine plantations and commercialized forests. The industrialization of forests in the southern US has degraded biodiversity, carbon sinks, natural flood control and other critical services forests provide.

Equally important is how this exploitation affects people. Black Americans own less than 1 percent of the rural land in the South yet make up a majority of the population in many of the rural counties that make up the nation's "Black Belt." While corporations and some landowners have accumulated wealth from logging forests, rural communities living on the front lines of the destruction have some of the highest poverty and unemployment rates in the country.

It is an injustice that those who benefit the least from destructive industries bear the brunt of the impacts.Along with a degraded landscape, these rural communities are overburdened by pollution from nearby paper mills, toxic waste dumps, coal pollution and some of the dirtiest industries of the modern industrial world. And tax breaks for logging and other destructive industries hurt public funds that could otherwise go to schools, health care and other critical social services that support community well-being.

At the same time, the Southern region is bearing the brunt of the impacts of climate change in the US due to flooding from extreme weather. Residents of low-income rural communities and communities of color are among the worst hurt, often lacking resources to evacuate or make ends meet until they can get back to work. It is an injustice that those who benefit the least from destructive industries bear the brunt of the impacts.

Stop the Exports

Recently, front-line communities, climate scientists, and faith, environmental and justice organizations have united in opposition to this rapidly expanding wood pellet export industry. Local communities are pushing back, concerned about more air pollution, dangerous truck traffic and other detrimental community impacts.

While forest landowners may benefit, rural communities broadly haven't seen widespread economic prosperity follow in the wake of forest industry expansion. There is little evidence that the industrial-scale logging of forests has contributed to creating vibrant, thriving rural, Southern communities. On the contrary, it is destroying the ability of standing forests to provide benefits such as clean drinking water and natural flood control.

In the same way we need a just transition away from resource extraction in the coal fields of Appalachia, we need a just transition in the forest economy of the Southern Coastal Plain to one that values the community benefits of standing forests.

An emerging diverse movement across the South working at the intersection of forests, climate and justice is focused on a new vision for the region - a just transition to 100 percent clean, renewable energy and a new forest economy that supports landowners to keep more forests standing, creates healthy jobs for low-income communities and communities of color, and ensures that everyone has a beautiful and healthy place to live, work and play.

At the heart of this movement is a recognition that we must put justice first. It is simply not acceptable to continue to put low-income people and people of color on the front lines of a destructive economic system that concentrates power and wealth in the hands of a few while destroying our life support system.

We must right the wrongs that have not only destroyed our forests, climate, air and water but also placed the burden on vulnerable communities that have suffered the most. By restoring the forest - as well as the air, water and climate - we can restore our communities, our relationship to each other and our morality.

We can provide for everyone's needs, but not if we do not eliminate greed. It's time to unite behind a vision for a new economy that values life above profits and that creates equitable opportunities for all.
Editor's note: The views expressed here are those of the author and not necessarily of Ensia.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Deforestation in the US South Is Four Times Greater Than Logging in South American Rainforests

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mahatma Gandhi said, "What we are doing to the forests of the world is but a mirror reflection of what we are doing to ourselves and to one another." He also said, "The Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed."

# data[].attributes.body
Under centralized Suharoot he rate of deforestation was between 550,000 and 1.7 million hectares a year; under a decentralized system the rate is now 2.8 million hectares annually.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I was born and raised in a small and tranquil village not far away from the Bukit Tiga Puluh National Park, in Jambi, Indonesia. My morning bathing rituals in the longest river in Sumatra, Batanghari, were accompanied by the wonderful calling of gibbons from treetops in the jungle on the other side of the river. In the evenings, hanging parrots livened up the front yard of my parents' house, while a flock of magpies sang cheerfully from the langsat trees nearby. My weekends were adventurous as my father used to take me to the pristine rainforest of Bukit Tiga Puluh to collect rattans, resin, and dragon's blood from the forest's inhabitants, the jungle people of Jambi.

But those unforgettable moments have now become history, disappearing forever thanks to deforestation.

In the early 1970s, my village and many other villages in Sumatra and Kalimantan were included in Suharto's national development project to become home bases for hundreds of logging companies . Social and environmental impacts were not among the authoritarian general's considerations.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

Hopes were high when Suharto was unseated by the students' vengeful demonstration in 1998, but his downfall did not bring much change. In the so called reformation ( reformasi) era not only did more logging companies pour into my village and other forest areas throughout Indonesia, but they were joined by mining companies and agricultural firms. The consequence was clear: were cut down.

Under centralized the rate of deforestation was between 550,000 and 1.7 million hectares a year; under a decentralized system the rate is now million hectares annually. The cause is that, unlike under the Suharto regime, regents now have more control in issuing permits to clear the forest. Village heads are also given more room from the central government to "manage" the forest in their regions.

This authority paves the way for local leaders to sell the forest to plantation and mining firms illegally. The motives are varied, from just enriching themselves to getting their political candidacies financed by the firms in exchange for forest clearance permits. The former regent of Palalawan in Riau Province, Tengku Azmun Jaafar, was by the Indonesian Anti-Corruption Body (KPK) for cashing in on forest licenses given to 15 companies in 2001. In Central Kalimantan, as stated by Governor Sugianto Sabran, a former regent in of up to 15 mining permits sold them to Indian and Chinese businesses. In South Sulawesi, a village head of Tompo Bolu was for unlawfully converting protected forest for his personal use. The suspended regent of Kutai Kartanegara in East Kalimantan allegedly a concession permit for cash to fund her political ambitions.

In 2013, I was involved in a collaborative research project on the Failures and Interventions on Agricultural Markets, which took place in five regencies within the province of Jambi. We traveled to hundreds of villages, including to the forest area I had walked with my father 20 years ago, Bukit Tiga Puluh. I could not believe what my eyes witnessed: the gigantic trees, the noisy sounds of the forest inhabitants, and the jungle people were all gone and replaced by mining sites, rubber trees, and palm fruit industries.

While forests have proven successful in enriching a few corporations and political leaders, this does not contribute significantly to the welfare of the people living around it. The Indonesian Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS) reported that in there were more than 6.2 million people living in poverty near and within forest areas of Sumatra. In Jambi, the number was over , which of course includes my fellow villagers. Our research trips confirmed the data; the residents in the villages we visited lived a starkly contrasting life to the village heads, who mostly owned fancy houses, luxury cars, and lots of assets.

The Indonesian Anti-Corruption Body (KPK) states that this results from, in addition to the corrupted practices by local officials, the uneven proportion of forest utilization between companies and local people. Whereas the former have a control of million hectares of Indonesian forest, the latter only have . In Jambi, of its vast forest area has been granted to corporations. This unequal share has raised tension in many resource-rich areas in Indonesia, making the country number in land conflicts in the world.

Poverty provokes anger and when both elements are incorporated disaster awaits. It is both poverty and fury that motivated people to cut trees illegally soon after Suharto was removed. They had been sick and tired of seeing guests taking over their wealth; thus, they concluded, securing the remaining trees from those outsiders was the best option. As a result, in the first 10 years after Suharto regime illegal logging became the number factor behind forest destruction in Indonesia.

Not only that, poverty is also responsible for shaping people's perception about wild animals' economic value. In the village, people consider beautiful birds or any other animal obtained from the forest as a source of money as they usually command high prices on the black market. The sense of commodification, however, does not originate from the village but from outside. I still remember how a school teacher from the regency nearby told us that he could buy the untouched magpies in the village at a premium price. Not long afterwards, villagers would rush to hunt the beautiful birds and now magpies are completely extinct from my village. Protected animals such as pangolins, freshwater turtles, or white-rumped Shamas are also purchased by buyers from the city, making the forest area in my village a contributor to Indonesia's status as the of the wildlife trade in Southeast Asia.

I tried my best to deal with the despair of losing the beautiful rainforest and wild animals from my village until one day I did an internship at the Sydney Taronga Zoo. I was shocked to learn that the tiger at the zoo was a Sumatran tiger taken from the forest area of the Bukit Tiga Puluh National Park. All of a sudden, memories about my childhood popped back into my head: the gibbon's morning calls, the birds, the forest. They all seemed so close to me but yet so far.

Søren Kierkegaard was right when he said that "life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."
Muhammad Beni Saputra is an Indonesian writer and lecturer at the State Islamic University Sulthan Thaha Saifudin Jambi, Indonesia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Untold Story of Indonesian Deforestation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I was born and raised in a small and tranquil village not far away from the Bukit Tiga Puluh National Park, in Jambi, Indonesia. My morning bathing rituals in the longest river in Sumatra, Batanghari, were accompanied by the wonderful calling of gibbons from treetops in the jungle on the other side of the river.

# data[].attributes.body
In the last 100 years, West Africa has lost about 90 percent of forest coverage. In many African countries the only forests left are reserved for permanent forestry, which means they are protected.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Africa's tropical forests include the Guinean Forests of West Africa and the Congo Basin, a sprawling rainforest often referred to as the world's second set of lungs. The continent's forests store 171 gigatons of carbon, are home to many plants and animals that exist nowhere else in the world and support an estimated 100 million people.

Abraham Baffoe, Africa regional director at Proforest, speaks to Deutsche Welle about the threats facing these forests and the urgent work that needs to be done to tackle deforestation.
DW: What is the state of deforestation in Africa today?
Abraham Baffoe: Africa houses about the second largest forest block in the world but unfortunately this forest is going, and it is going very fast. Currently in some African countries they are losing forest at a rate of about 2-3 percent per year, in some countries much faster. At this rate, if nothing is done, we may lose everything.

Read more: Saving Kenya's anti-cancer tree

In the last 100 years, West Africa has lost about 90 percent of forest coverage. In many African countries the only forests left are reserved for permanent forestry, which means they are protected. Now in places like Ghana and the Ivory Coast we don't have any forest left outside the reserves and now even the reserves are being encroached upon and being degraded by excessive logging and exploitation. In the Congo Basin, where there are still forests outside the reserves, these areas are going very fast because of agriculture, commodity development and farming activity by small-holder farmers.
What are the wider impacts of deforestation on the continent?
Well frankly speaking, the impact of deforestation, from my point of view, goes beyond what we as human beings can imagine. There are several things we don't know and so we can't fully understand what the impact of losing our forest will be.

What we do know is the impact it will have on biodiversity. If you look at the West African Forest, it is one of the most diverse ecosystems in the world. There are several animals and plants that only exist in these forests. They can't survive without their habitat, so when you lose the forest, they will also disappear. Then there is the impact in accelerating climate change - that is something we now all know - as well as the huge economic impact. What is also critical is the impact it has on people who depend on the forest socially and economically. For example, there are indigenous people who live in the Congo Basin, and the forest is their source of livelihood. We are destroying the habitat of these people - and that means we are driving them out of this world, which we don't have the right to do.

The Congo Basin is often referred to as the world's second set of lungs
How much collaboration is happening between decision makers at the policy level?
I think collaborating and working together is essential if you really want to address deforestation. Tackling the underlying causes of deforestation is not something that government alone can address. It is also not something the private sector alone can address. It requires collaborative efforts of the private sector, the government and even the communities who live in the forest.

Read more: Ecuador has grand plans to build out its bio-based economy

It is also important that we don't just think about conservation and protection. We also have to make sure we develop livelihood options and economic opportunities for the local communities. We need to get their support, and we can't do that if they don't know how they will survive - how they will get up in the morning and provide food for their children and family.
How significant was the 2016 African Palm Oil Initiative?
That was where the collaboration all started. It was a significant moment when the key stakeholders in African countries came together and realized that things such as palm oil used for commodities were the major drivers of deforestation.

In Latin America the focus is more on soy and cattle, but we recognized that our focus in Africa needs to be on palm oil. The heart of the initiative is the recognition that government and the private sector needed to work together to create principles on how land should be allocated and used. The initiative is not about saying all palm oil is bad but instead pushing for it to be sourced responsibly and sustainably, and about making sure that the wealth is shared between private companies and the local community. The fact that we had the major countries agree on this is an important mark of progress.

What this means on the ground, is that for instance in Liberia we saw a community saying if farmers come onto our land, we don't want to just be oil palm plantation workers, we also want to be owners of our palm. And for me that is a phenomenal statement. The Liberian government have integrated the principles of the initiative and stated that no company will be given land without a requirement for the company to create small-holder farms for the community.
As an expert working on this issue, do you feel hopeful about the future of tackling deforestation in Africa?
If we were to maintain the status quo then I'm going to be very disappointed and feel that there is no hope for the forests of Africa. However, if we keep moving toward more collaboration between the government and private sector, agreeing what needs to be done, then I am very positive and hopeful. But I can't say I am 100 percent certain about the future - because it is one thing to agree on these principles, like those in the African Palm Oil Initiative, and it is another to translate them into action on the ground. The agreement only happened two years ago so we haven't yet seen what it can do. But I'm hopeful that if we go on as we have started then in three or four years there will be concrete impact that can be demonstrated.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
African deforestation: 'If nothing is done, we may lose everything' | DW | 30.05.2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Africa's tropical forests include the Guinean Forests of West Africa and the Congo Basin, a sprawling rainforest often referred to as the world's second set of lungs. The continent's forests store 171 gigatons of carbon, are home to many plants and animals that exist nowhere else in the world and support an estimated 100 million people.

# data[].attributes.body
About eight million tonnes of plastic waste are dumped into the world's oceans every year, the equivalent of one garbage truck of plastic being tipped into the sea every minute of every day. More than half comes from five Asian countries: China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Vietnamese mangrove draped with polythene, a whale killed after swallowing waste bags in Thai seas and clouds of underwater trash near Indonesian "paradise" islands -- grim images of the plastic crisis that has gripped Asia.

3 related media assets (image or videos) available. Click to see the gallery.

Share this content

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share via E-Mail

THANH HOA, Vietnam: A Vietnamese mangrove draped with polythene, a whale killed after swallowing waste bags in Thai seas and clouds of underwater trash near Indonesian "paradise" islands - these are grim images of the plastic crisis in Asia.

About eight million tonnes of plastic waste are dumped into the world's oceans every year, the equivalent of one garbage truck of plastic being tipped into the sea every minute of every day.

More than half comes from five Asian countries: China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam, according to a 2015 Ocean Conservancy report.

They are among the fastest growing economies in Asia, where much of the world's plastic is produced, consumed and discarded - most of it improperly in countries where waste management is at best patchy.

"We are in a plastic pollution crisis, we can see it everywhere in our rivers, in our oceans... we need to do something about it," Greenpeace Indonesia campaigner Ahmad Ashov Birry told AFP.

World Environment Day on Tuesday (Jun 5) is highlighting the perils of plastic with the tagline "if you can't reuse it, refuse it".

INVISIBLE THREAT
But it is not just an issue of aesthetics, plastics are killing marine life.

Last week a whale died in southern Thailand with 80 plastic bags in its stomach, an increasingly common sight alongside dead seabirds and turtles gorged on plastic and washed ashore.

Experts warn the greatest threat might be invisible.

Microplastics - tiny shards that easily soak up toxins after breaking off from larger plastic pieces - have been found in tap water, ground water and inside fish that millions of people eat across Asia every day.

Scientists still do not fully understand the health effects of consuming microplastics.

"We're conducting a global experiment with no sense of where we're heading with this whole thing," Carl Gustaf Lundin, head of the global marine and polar programme at the International Union for Conservation of Nature, told AFP.

That worries Vietnamese fisherwoman Nguyen Thi Phuong, whose sleepy village on the South China Sea coast in Thanh Hoa province has slowly transformed into a dump site over the years.

"It's unbearable, people discard their garbage here ... it's so polluted for the children, it's not safe," she said in the baking heat thick with the smell of trash and fish.

In the nearby mangrove forest, her neighbours dig through warm, trash-speckled mud for snails or shrimp.

But the tree branches above are blanketed with faded plastic bags left behind from tidal waters that wash up fresh waste every day.
MORE PLASTIC THAN FISH BY 2050
A one-kilometre stretch of beach is lined with sandals, biscuit wrappers, tubes of Japanese toothpaste, juice boxes, fishing nets, furniture and heaps of discarded clothing, as piles of trash burn nearby.

"It's hard for us to work here finding shrimp and fish," said fisherman Vu Quoc Viet, who often finds plastic trash in his nets.

Rubbish collection is low in rural Vietnam as elsewhere in Asia, one of the main reasons why so much plastic ends up in the sea, according to Joi Danielson, programme director of Oceans Plastics Asia at SYSTEMIQ.

On average only about 40 percent of garbage is properly collected in the five plastic-addled countries that spit out most of the ocean's trash, with few resources dedicated to proper waste management especially in mushrooming mega-cities.

Plus, plastic consumption - and waste - continues to balloon along with growing incomes and dependence on plastic products integral to almost every aspect of daily life.

"You're battling against this constantly growing target," Danielson told AFP.
"NOT ROCKET SCIENCE"
At the current rate of dumping, the total amount of plastic trash in the world's oceans is expected to double to 250 million tonnes by 2025, according to Ocean Conservancy.

That means there could be more plastic than fish in the world's seas by 2050 if the nothing is done to turn the tide.

Environmentalists are looking to China to lead by example when it comes to tackling the problem.

Last year the world's second largest economy said it would stop importing the West's recycling, refusing to be "the world's garbage dump".

But the vast majority of China's waste is homegrown and collection remains low in rural areas, according to Danielson.

Experts agree that while the problem seems daunting with plastic waste so ubiquitous throughout Asia, it is a crisis with a solution.

Social media campaigns calling for plastic bans and viral videos like the one featuring British diver Rich Horner swimming through clouds of trash off the coast of Bali have helped to spark pubic awareness.

Improved waste collection and reduced consumption have been flagged as crucial next steps.

Ocean Conservancy has also called for new plastic materials and product designs and more investment into waste-to-energy and waste-to-fuel schemes.

For Lundin, political will is perhaps the biggest hurdle at the moment.

"It's not rocket science ... there's no place that couldn't fix it if they decided they had to," he said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic wasteland: Asia's ocean pollution crisis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Vietnamese mangrove draped with polythene, a whale killed after swallowing waste bags in Thai seas and clouds of underwater trash near Indonesian "paradise" islands -- grim images of the plastic crisis that has gripped Asia.

# data[].attributes.headline
The health effect of air pollution from traffic

# data[].attributes.subject
The health effect of air pollution from traffic

# data[].attributes.body
Every year, over 400,000 people in Europe die prematurely due to air pollution -- and there is clear evidence that the mortality rate is higher among people living in areas with more polluted air.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What would happen if all petrol and diesel-powered vehicles were removed from a smaller European city? Up to 4% of all premature deaths could be prevented, according to a new study from Lund University in Sweden. The researchers used Malmö, Sweden, as a case study to calculate the health costs of inner city traffic.

Every year, over 400,000 people in Europe die prematurely due to air pollution -- and there is clear evidence that the mortality rate is higher among people living in areas with more polluted air.

Malmö, Sweden, with a population of 320,000, generally stays below the recommended EU threshold for small particles and nitrogen oxides annually. Despite this, the health benefits of removing exhaust fumes from the city would be significant.

"Decreased pollution would prevent 55-93 premature deaths (2-4% of all cases) each year, 21 new cases of childhood asthma (6% of all cases), 95 cases of childhood bronchitis (10% of all cases), 30 hospitalisations for respiratory diseases (1% of all cases), 87 dementia cases (4% of all cases) and 11 cases of pregnant women with preeclampsia (11% of all cases)," explains Ebba Malmqvist, researcher at the Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at Lund University.

The change would also prevent 2 729 days of sick leave and 16 472 days of reduced activity due to ill health, the study found.

The researchers have been very cautious in their interpretations, and the effects of decreased air pollution would probably be far greater in reality.

In Malmö, seven times more people die from these sources of air pollution than from traffic accidents.

"Our vision is zero traffic deaths, and considerable investments are made to ensure this -- yet we turn a blind eye to the health effects of air pollution," says Ebba Malmqvist.

Malmö generally stays below EU average air pollution levels of small particles and nitrogen oxides. According to the researchers, the chosen threshold is a compromise between the World Health Organisation's guidelines and political considerations. However, the epidemiological studies do not include limit values; as the values increase so do the risks.

"The limit value is to give EU citizens some protection against high levels of particles, but it does not represent a safe level. There is nothing to suggest that simply being below the limit value would have any health effects -- on the contrary, we see negative effects even at levels below the EU value," says Anna Oudin, also researcher at the Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

Despite the fact that researchers have been working on environmental considerations for more than 10 years, the decision-makers have apparently not absorbed the information.

"There is a tendency to believe that because we currently meet the environmental quality standards, our work is essentially done," says Anna Oudin.

As a result of the study, a number of workshops will be offered for employees working with urban planning issues in the City of Malmö, to discuss how to solve environmental issues in the future. One of several ideas is to introduce environmental zones:

"Environmental zones exist in other cities, where the strictest zone prohibits cars fuelled by petrol or diesel. But Malmö must figure out what suits them. However, we have shown that promoting cleaner air and better health of the population is worthwhile," concludes Ebba Malmqvist.

EXPLAINER VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz5eyg-12WE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
diseases and conditions; teen health; workplace health; health policy; air pollution; environmental issues; air quality; pollution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The health effect of air pollution from traffic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What would happen if all petrol and diesel-powered vehicles were removed from a smaller European city? Up to 4% of all premature deaths could be prevented, according to a new study. The researchers used Malmö, Sweden, as a case study to calculate the health costs of inner city traffic.

# data[].attributes.headline
Indian city chokes on world's worst pollution

# data[].attributes.subject
Indian city chokes on world's worst pollution

# data[].attributes.body
Pollution blamed for filling Kanpur's hospital beds with growing numbers of chronic lung and cancer cases

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Men row a boat in the river Ganges as smoke emits from a chimney of a leather tannery at an industrial area in Kanpur, India, May 4, 2018. (Reuters photo)

KANPUR, India: Soot turned the white handkerchief around Abhash Kumar Sharma's face to black as the police officer tried to direct gridlocked traffic in the Indian city with the world's dirtiest air.

It was all he had to ward off the pollution blamed for filling Kanpur's hospital beds with growing numbers of chronic lung and cancer cases.

"It is the same story for everyone who spends such long hours out in this city," said Sharma, who does not get a mask for his duties.

"The pollution gets into your eyes and it often stings."

The city of three million people has been smarting since a World Health Organization (WHO) report last month put it at the head of 14 Indian cities in the world's top 15 with the dirtiest air.

The pain has building up for much longer, but as the world marks Environment Day, the fallout has reached crisis point for many in Kanpur.

When @WHO released the list of #MostPollutedCities in May 2018, #Kanpur topped the list. More in #ETMagazine tomorrow. pic.twitter.com/idmIKSQrgw
- EconomicTimes (@EconomicTimes) June 2, 2018

Sunil Dahiya, senior campaigner with Greenpeace India, said "the models available to us make it certain that hundreds of thousands of people are dying in India each year because of air pollution".

A senior doctor at the Murari Lal Chest Hospital, Anand Kumar, said the number of patients has jumped from about 40,000 in 2015 to 64,000 last year.
- 'Where are the trees?' -
"More than 50% of these patients, maybe more, come with breathing-related issues," the doctor told AFP.

"Even the severity is worsening. Many who earlier recovered in a day or two now need days and much stronger medication to get better."

The number of chronic pulmonary disease and lung cancer cases is rising among non-smokers, particularly women, he added. "There is no reason for it (other) than primarily atmospheric pollution."

Children under five are also suffering more, he added.

In one overcrowded ward, 74-year-old Ram Lakhan, who spends long periods in hospital barely able to breathe, blamed his suffering on cars.

"Where are the trees now? We only have vehicles, pollution and traffic jams.

"With all the greenery gone, we are only breathing what is available -- pollution," he said.

A WHO report named Kanpur as the city with the world's worst air pollution

"I've never had it this bad before. I only used to feel breathlessness and discomfort in bad winters, when there was smog. But it has been hard even in summers for the last two or three years," he added.

In the crippling traffic, it took an hour to drive the seven kilometres (four miles) from the hospital to the Uttar Pradesh state pollution control office where chief officer Kuldeep Misra also took aim at the 1.15 million vehicles on city roads.

"This is an industrial city but vehicles here pollute more than industry," he said.

Misra was sceptical about Kanpur being the world's dirtiest city as the UN report was based on "old data".

"The report caused ripples," he acknowledged. "But we're not sure about the tag."

To what extent are tanneries in Kanpur responsible for Ganga pollution? @ChitnisPurva reports https://t.co/CDk92QTmor pic.twitter.com/XecGx9JbKz
- BloombergQuint (@BloombergQuint) December 5, 2017

The WHO report was based on 2016 Indian data on the number of particles under 2.5 micrograms -- the smallest and most dangerous.

It said Kanpur had an average PM2.5 concentration of 173 micrograms per cubic metre -- about seven times the normal safe level.

Misra believes Kanpur's water pollution is worse than the air because of its huge leather industry and tanneries.

The tanneries are often blamed for polluting the revered Ganges river, which passes through the city.

Misra said the authorities planned to take action, but it would take time.

"There is no magic wand," he added.

Time may not be on the side of 50-year-old Shiv Kumari, a patient at the overcrowded chest hospital who wears an oxygen mask to help her breathe.

"Pollution, dust or smoke makes me breathless. I feel that I am choking. I cough and feel as if something sharp is pinching my throat," she told AFP.

"It has become too difficult to live in this kind of an atmosphere. Look at this machine," she said, pointing to her automatic breathing aid that cost more than $1,500.

"How can a poor person afford something like this, especially when it's so important for survival in this pollution?"

"The government should do something to fix this," she added before readjusting her mask as she started feeling breathless again.

The Latest World Health Organisation Report Revealed That Out Of The 15 World's Most Polluted Cities, 14 Are From India.
Kanpur Is The Worst
In 2010 China Had 16 Cities in The List Of 20 Most Polluted Cities Now It Has Only 4.
Your Views?#WHO #WorldHealthOrganization #pollution pic.twitter.com/wEWUJapx0Z
- (@HatindersinghR) May 3, 2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bad air day: Indian city chokes on world's worst pollution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Men row a boat in the river Ganges as smoke emits from a chimney of a leather tannery at an industrial area in Kanpur, India, May 4, 2018. (Reuters photo) KANPUR, India: Soot turned the white handkerchief around Abhash Kumar Sharma's face to black as the police officer tried to direct gridlocked traffic in the Indian city with the world's dirtiest air.

# data[].attributes.headline
U.N. seeks to cut pollution as recycling falls short

# data[].attributes.subject
U.N. seeks to cut pollution as recycling falls short

# data[].attributes.body
Less than a 10th of all the plastic ever made has been recycled, and governments should consider banning or taxing single-use bags or food containers to stem a tide of pollution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
OSLO (Reuters) - Less than a 10th of all the plastic ever made has been recycled, and governments should consider banning or taxing single-use bags or food containers to stem a tide of pollution, a U.N. report said on Tuesday, U.N. World Environment Day.

The study, billed as the most comprehensive review of government action to curb single-use plastics, said up to 5 trillion plastic bags were used worldwide each year. Spread out side-by-side, they would cover an area twice the size of France.

"The scourge of plastic has reached every corner of the Earth," Erik Solheim, head of U.N. Environment, wrote in the report, compiled with the Indian government and launched along with a slogan: "If you can't reuse it, refuse it."

"Only 9 percent of the 9 billion tonnes of plastic the world has ever produced has been recycled," the report said. "Most ends up in landfills, dumps or in the environment."

China is the biggest source of plastic packaging waste, ahead of the European Union and the United States. Per capita, however, the United States produces most, ahead of Japan and the EU.

But there are signs of action to limit plastic pollution, which harms life in the oceans, contaminates soils and releases toxic chemicals when burnt.

"Targeted levies and bans - where properly planned and enforced - have been among the most effective strategies to limit overuse of disposable plastic products," the report said.

Elisa Tonda, who leads U.N. Environment's Sustainable Lifestyle program, said more than 60 countries had bans or charges on single-use plastics such as bags or polystyrene containers.

Thirty percent of countries found sharp drops in plastic bag consumption in the first year after imposing restrictions, while 20 percent saw little or no change. But in half the cases, governments failed to gauge the effects of restrictions, the report said.

Among its recommendations, the report called for better sorting of waste and recycling, economic incentives to promote eco-friendly alternatives to plastics, education of consumers and promotion of reusable products.

The report also found other cultural side-effects.

In South Africa, plastic litter is jokingly referred to as "the new national flower". In Ireland, windblown plastic bags caught in trees are referred to as "witch's knickers".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ban plastic bags? U.N. seeks to cut pollution as recycling falls short

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Less than a 10th of all the plastic ever made has been recycled, and governments should consider banning or taxing single-use bags or food containers to stem a tide of pollution, a U.N. report said on Tuesday, U.N. World Environment Day.

# data[].attributes.headline
Plastic and rubbish polluting rivers in India, Philippines and Vietnam

# data[].attributes.subject
Plastic and rubbish polluting rivers in India, Philippines and Vietnam

# data[].attributes.body
Drains in the country’s capital city, New Delhi, are choked with plastic, while streets are lined with bags of trash and rivers are full of waste and pollution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SHOCKING photos of polluted rivers filled with rubbish in India, Philippines and Vietnam have emerged ahead of the annual World Environment Day tomorrow.
This year's theme is plastic pollution and India, which contains 14 of the most plastic-polluted cities in the world according to the World Health Organisation, is the country in focus.

Drains in the country's capital city, New Delhi, are choked with plastic, while streets are lined with bags of trash and rivers are full of waste and pollution.

In photos, you can see that sewage drain canals in the slums are clogged with plastic, and residents go about their lives around it.

Ram Nath, 40, makes a living from sorting recyclable trash - like plastic bottles - from waste in the Yamuna river in India.

It is one of India's most sacred rivers - but it's also one of the most polluted.

In Manila, the Philippines, the Pasig River is considered to be one of the most polluted in the world because of the large amount of waste dumped in it.

Despite the pollution, it remains a popular swimming spot for children and people in the area.

Environmental advocates in the Philippines are calling on the government to rehabilitate the river.

They have set up the Pasig River Rehabilitation Commission, but its efforts have deteriorated over time.

Pasig River provides food, livelihood and transport to Manila, so it's important that the pollution is brought to a stop.

Indonesia has been ranked as the second biggest marine polluter in the world, just behind China.

Reports that show the country produces 187.2 million tonnes of plastic waste each year.

The country lacks the infrastructure required to effectively manage their waste.

The problem has become so severe that the nation's army has been called in to help clean-up its rivers - which are clogged with bottles, bags and plastic packaging.

According to studies, there could be more plastic than fish in the sea by 2050.

Actual plastic particles may be in our seafood, as fish consume the plastic which are coated in bacteria and algae, mimicking their food sources.
We pay for your stories! Do you have a story for The Sun Online news team? Email us at tips@the-sun.co.uk or call 0207 782 4368 . You can WhatsApp us on 07810 791 502. We pay for videos too. Click here to upload yours.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shocking images show mountains of plastic and rubbish polluting rivers in India, Philippines and Vietnam

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SHOCKING photos of polluted rivers filled with rubbish in India, Philippines and Vietnam have emerged ahead of the annual World Environment Day tomorrow. This year's theme is plastic pollution and India, which contains 14 of the most plastic-polluted cities in the world according to the World Health Organisation, is the country in focus.

# data[].attributes.body
To reverse global warming, businesses need to become adept at two things: reducing carbon emissions on a sweeping scale and decreasing the amount of excess carbon already in the atmosphere

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In pronouncing 2018 the Year of Climate Action, the Singapore government could not be sending a clearer or more timely signal. As a fast-paced, resource-intensive society, Singapore's greenhouse gas emissions per capita far outstrip the average country's-we rank 26th out of 142 nations. Though small, we pack a punch contributing to what has come to be known as the greatest challenge to our species. If we are to solve the climate problem, we would have to act together-and quickly.

Indeed, we have seen action bubbling up, here and in the region. Earlier this year, the Singapore government announced an impending carbon tax on facilities that surpass 25,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions in a year. Civil society groups have also risen to the challenge-the Singapore Youth for Climate Action, for example, have been coordinating community workshops over the past two-and-a-half years.

But there is one wild card, and that is industry. Businesses can both radically scale up positive change and cause significant environmental impact. The manufacturing sector alone, which contributes to 20-25 per cent of Singapore's economy, is expected to account for a whopping 60 per cent of Singapore's greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

To reverse global warming, businesses need to become adept at two things: reducing carbon emissions on a sweeping scale and decreasing the amount of excess carbon already in the atmosphere. Each of these presents a significant opportunity for innovation and growth.

At least one company has had success with the first approach. Ant Financial, the financial technology arm of the Chinese conglomerate Alibaba, released an app in 2016 that aims to make low-carbon lifestyles appealing to the masses. Ant Forest users who make sustainable lifestyle choices get to cash in points for actual trees to be planted on their behalf. The app already engages over 220 million users who have collectively planted more than 10 million trees.

Other businesses are focusing not merely on achieving carbon neutrality, but on strategies to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Companies are now developing technology that takes greenhouse gases out of the air and stores the captured carbon in raw materials and useful products-from yarn to fertiliser, fuel to baking soda.

Interface Inc, a flooring manufacturer with its Southeast Asian centre of operations in Singapore, developed and released a carpet tile prototype last year called Proof Positive. It is bio-based (made from renewable plants) and so stores carbon produced during photosynthesis. The production of the tile results in less carbon in the atmosphere: while the average Interface carpet tile has a carbon footprint of seven kilograms of carbon dioxide per square metre, the Proof Positive prototype tile stores two kilograms of carbon dioxide per square metre. If we keep recycling the tiles through our carpet recycling programme, this carbon can be kept out of the atmosphere for decades.

London-headquartered company Carbon Clean Solutions Limited (CCSL) has patented a way to make useful materials out of waste carbon dioxide from power and chemical plants. Its flagship project, the Tuticorin power plant located in Tamil Nadu, India, captures the carbon dioxide released from the factory's boiler and transforms it into raw material for baking soda.

Businesses are also looking to reverse global warming by tapping-and magnifying-nature's ability to process and store carbon.

The Bangalore-based company Afforestt helps organisations-including schools, factories and zoos-grow forests in urban contexts, using methods that work with nature (such as mixing soil with microorganisms rather than adding nutrition) to accelerate forest growth.

In partnership with leading biomimicry innovation consultancy Biomimicry 3.8, Interface is piloting an approach that imagines manufacturing of the future. Factory as a Forest envisions a redesign of a factory so that it runs like an ecosystem, managing and sequestering carbon where possible and operating as a functional equivalent to natural habitats.

"

To reverse global warming, businesses need to become adept at two things: reducing carbon emissions on a sweeping scale and decreasing the amount of excess carbon already in the atmosphere.

For its first pilot project in New South Wales, Australia, Interface's Minto factory measured the ecosystem services that a nearby forest could provide-then challenged its employees to create ideas the factory could implement to make it perform more like the local ecosystem, such as using wetlands and roof gardens to purify water.

These examples signal an incoming tidal wave of innovative business models geared towards solving the climate challenge at scale. We know this because businesses sharing similar, radical ambitions are banding together. RE100, a coalition of global companies committed to 100 per cent renewable power, is one good example. So is NextWave, a group of businesses working to develop a commercial-scale supply chain out of ocean plastic, reducing ocean pollution-a contributor to global warming-in the process.

What this means is that companies and organisations that want to take action now have the opportunity to not just follow in the footsteps of restorative businesses, but to take off from where those footsteps end and jumpstart bold business models of their own. And once we have that critical mass of businesses setting goals to reverse global warming, we can perhaps begin to create a climate fit for life.
Karen Lee is sustainability lead at Interface Asia. This post was first published on The Business Times and republished with permission.

Thanks for reading to the end of this story!

We would be grateful if you would consider joining as a member of The EB Circle. This helps to keep our stories and resources free for all, and it also supports independent journalism dedicated to sustainable development. It only costs as little as S$5 a month, and you would be helping to make a big difference.
Find out more and join The EB Circle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why businesses must go beyond zero to reverse global warming

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In pronouncing 2018 the Year of Climate Action, the Singapore government could not be sending a clearer or more timely signal. As a fast-paced, resource-intensive society, Singapore's greenhouse gas emissions per capita far outstrip the average country's-we rank 26th out of 142 nations.

# data[].attributes.headline
The earth has changed throughout history

# data[].attributes.subject
The earth has changed throughout history

# data[].attributes.body
In the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.

Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era - and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth's orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Credit: Luthi, D., et al.. 2008; Etheridge, D.M., et al. 2010; Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.) Find out more about ice cores (external site).

The current warming trend is different because it is clearly the result of human activities since the mid-1800s, and is proceeding at a rate not seen over many recent millennia. It is undeniable that human activities have produced the atmospheric gases that have trapped more of the Sun's energy in the Earth system. This extra energy has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land, and widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere, and biosphere have occurred.

Do scientists agree on climate change?

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists - 97 percent - agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.

detailed answer

Earth-orbiting satellites and new technologies have helped scientists see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate all over the world. These data, collected over many years, reveal the signs and patterns of a changing climate.

Scientists demonstrated the heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases in the mid-19th century. Many of the science instruments NASA uses to study our climate focus on how these gases affect the movement of infrared radiation through the atmosphere. From the measured impacts of increases in these gases, there is no question that increased greenhouse gas levels warm Earth in response.

"Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal."

- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that Earth's climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly 10 times faster than the average rate of warming after an ice age. Carbon dioxide from human activities is increasing about 250 times faster than it did from natural sources after the last Ice Age.

References

References
Header image shows clouds imitating mountains as the sun sets after midnight as seen from Denali's backcountry Unit 13 on June 14, 2019. Credit: NPS/Emily Mesner

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. How do we know it's happening? Here's the evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
Ice is melting, weather is changing, and species are being impacted because of humans effects on the environment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rising temperatures, extreme weather events, shifting wildlife populations and habitats, rising seas, and a range of other impacts will be seen as the climate changes.

# data[].attributes.body
The "greenhouse effect" is the warming that happens when certain gases in Earth's atmosphere trap heat. These gases let in light but keep heat from escaping

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising, cloud forests are dying, and wildlife is scrambling to keep pace. It has become clear that humans have caused most of the past century's warming by releasing heat-trapping gases as we power our modern lives. Called greenhouse gases, their levels are higher now than at any time in the last 800,000 years.

We often call the result global warming, but it is causing a set of changes to the Earth's climate, or long-term weather patterns, that varies from place to place. While many people think of global warming and climate change as synonyms, scientists use "climate change" when describing the complex shifts now affecting our planet's weather and climate systems-in part because some areas actually get cooler in the short term.

Climate change encompasses not only rising average temperatures but also extreme weather events, shifting wildlife populations and habitats, rising seas, and a range of other impacts. All of those changes are emerging as humans continue to add heat-trapping greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, changing the rhythms of climate that all living things have come to rely on.

What will we do-what can we do-to slow this human-caused warming? How will we cope with the changes we've already set into motion? While we struggle to figure it all out, the fate of the Earth as we know it-coasts, forests, farms, and snow-capped mountains-hangs in the balance.

Understanding the greenhouse effect

The "greenhouse effect" is the warming that happens when certain gases in Earth's atmosphere trap heat. These gases let in light but keep heat from escaping, like the glass walls of a greenhouse, hence the name.

Sunlight shines onto the Earth's surface, where the energy is absorbed and then radiate back into the atmosphere as heat. In the atmosphere, greenhouse gas molecules trap some of the heat, and the rest escapes into space. The more greenhouse gases concentrate in the atmosphere, the more heat gets locked up in the molecules.

Scientists have known about the greenhouse effect since 1824, when Joseph Fourier calculated that the Earth would be much colder if it had no atmosphere. This natural greenhouse effect is what keeps the Earth's climate livable. Without it, the Earth's surface would be an average of about 60 degrees Fahrenheit (33 degrees Celsius) cooler.

In 1895, the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius discovered that humans could enhance the greenhouse effect by making carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. He kicked off 100 years of climate research that has given us a sophisticated understanding of global warming.

Levels of greenhouse gases have gone up and down over the Earth's history, but they had been fairly constant for the past few thousand years. Global average temperatures had also stayed fairly constant over that time- until the past 150 years. Through the burning of fossil fuels and other activities that have emitted large amounts of greenhouse gases, particularly over the past few decades, humans are now enhancing the greenhouse effect and warming Earth significantly, and in ways that promise many effects, scientists warn.

Aren't temperature changes natural?

Human activity isn't the only factor that affects Earth's climate. Volcanic eruptions and variations in solar radiation from sunspots, solar wind, and the Earth's position relative to the sun also play a role. So do large-scale weather patterns such as El Niño.

But climate models that scientists use to monitor Earth's temperatures take those factors into account. Changes in solar radiation levels as well as minute particles suspended in the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions, for example, have contributed only about two percent to the recent warming effect. The balance comes from greenhouse gases and other human-caused factors, such as land use change.

The short timescale of this recent warming is singular as well. Volcanic eruptions, for example, emit particles that temporarily cool the Earth's surface. But their effect lasts just a few years. Events like El Niño also work on fairly short and predictable cycles. On the other hand, the types of global temperature fluctuations that have contributed to ice ages occur on a cycle of hundreds of thousands of years.

For thousands of years now, emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere have been balanced out by greenhouse gases that are naturally absorbed. As a result, greenhouse gas concentrations and temperatures have been fairly stable, which has allowed human civilization to flourish within a consistent climate.

Now, humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution. Changes that have historically taken thousands of years are now happening over the course of decades.

Why does this matter?

The rapid rise in greenhouse gases is a problem because it's changing the climate faster than some living things can adapt to. Also, a new and more unpredictable climate poses unique challenges to all life.

Historically, Earth's climate has regularly shifted between temperatures like those we see today and temperatures cold enough to cover much of North America and Europe with ice. The difference between average global temperatures today and during those ice ages is only about 9 degrees Fahrenheit (5 degrees Celsius), and the swings have tended to happen slowly, over hundreds of thousands of years.

But with concentrations of greenhouse gases rising, Earth's remaining ice sheets such as Greenland and Antarctica are starting to melt too. That extra water could raise sea levels significantly, and quickly. By 2050, sea levels are predicted to rise between one and 2.3 feet as glaciers melt.

As the mercury rises, the climate can change in unexpected ways. In addition to sea levels rising, weather can become more extreme. This means more intense major storms, more rain followed by longer and drier droughts-a challenge for growing crops-changes in the ranges in which plants and animals can live, and loss of water supplies that have historically come from glaciers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising, cloud forests are drying, and wildlife is scrambling to keep pace.

# data[].attributes.body
The burning of fossil fuels to make electricity is the largest source of heat-trapping pollution, producing about two billion tons of CO2 every year

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A: Since the Industrial Revolution, the global annual temperature has increased in total by a little more than 1 degree Celsius, or about 2 degrees Fahrenheit. Between 1880-the year that accurate recordkeeping began-and 1980, it rose on average by 0.07 degrees Celsius (0.13 degrees Fahrenheit) every 10 years. Since 1981, however, the rate of increase has more than doubled: For the last 40 years, we've seen the global annual temperature rise by 0.18 degrees Celsius, or 0.32 degrees Fahrenheit, per decade.

The result? A planet that has never been hotter. Nine of the 10 warmest years since 1880 have occurred since 2005-and the 5 warmest years on record have all occurred since 2015. Climate change deniers have argued that there has been a "pause" or a "slowdown" in rising global temperatures, but numerous studies, including a 2018 paper published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, have disproved this claim. The impacts of global warming are already harming people around the world.

What causes global warming?

A: Global warming occurs when carbon dioxide (CO ₂) and other air pollutants collect in the atmosphere and absorb sunlight and solar radiation that have bounced off the earth's surface. Normally this radiation would escape into space, but these pollutants, which can last for years to centuries in the atmosphere, trap the heat and cause the planet to get hotter. These heat-trapping pollutants-specifically carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, water vapor, and synthetic fluorinated gases-are known as greenhouse gases, and their impact is called the greenhouse effect.

How is global warming linked to extreme weather?

A: Scientists agree that the earth's rising temperatures are fueling longer and hotter heat waves, more frequent droughts, heavier rainfall, and more powerful hurricanes.

In 2015, for example, scientists concluded that a lengthy drought in California-the state's worst water shortage in 1,200 years-had been intensified by 15 to 20 percent by global warming. They also said the odds of similar droughts happening in the future had roughly doubled over the past century. And in 2016, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine announced that we can now confidently attribute some extreme weather events, like heat waves, droughts, and heavy precipitation, directly to climate change.

The impacts of global warming are being felt everywhere. Extreme heat waves have caused tens of thousands of deaths around the world in recent years. And in an alarming sign of events to come, Antarctica has lost nearly four trillion metric tons of ice since the 1990s. The rate of loss could speed up if we keep burning fossil fuels at our current pace, some experts say, causing sea levels to rise several meters in the next 50 to 150 years and wreaking havoc on coastal communities worldwide.

What are the other effects of global warming?

A: Each year scientists learn more about the consequences of global warming, and each year we also gain new evidence of its devastating impact on people and the planet. As the heat waves, droughts, and floods associated with climate change become more frequent and more intense, communities suffer and death tolls rise. If we're unable to reduce our emissions, scientists believe that climate change could lead to the deaths of more than 250,000 people around the globe every year and force 100 million people into poverty by 2030.

Global warming is already taking a toll on the United States. And if we aren't able to get a handle on our emissions, here's just a smattering of what we can look forward to:

Disappearing glaciers, early snowmelt, and severe droughts will cause more dramatic water shortages and continue to increase the risk of wildfires in the American West.

Rising sea levels will lead to even more coastal flooding on the Eastern Seaboard, especially in Florida, and in other areas such as the Gulf of Mexico.

Forests, farms, and cities will face troublesome new pests, heat waves, heavy downpours, and increased flooding. All of these can damage or destroy agriculture and fisheries.

Disruption of habitats such as coral reefs and alpine meadows could drive many plant and animal species to extinction.

Allergies, asthma, and infectious disease outbreaks will become more common due to increased growth of pollen-producing ragweed, higher levels of air pollution, and the spread of conditions favorable to pathogens and mosquitoes.

Though everyone is affected by climate change, not everyone is affected equally. Indigenous people, people of color, and the economically marginalized are typically hit the hardest. Inequities built into our housing, health care, and labor systems make these communities more vulnerable to the worst impacts of climate change-even though these same communities have done the least to contribute to it.

Where does the United States stand in terms of global-warming contributors?

A: In recent years, China has taken the lead in global-warming pollution, producing about 26 percent of all CO2 emissions. The United States comes in second. Despite making up just 4 percent of the world's population, our nation produces a sobering 13 percent of all global CO2 emissions-nearly as much as the European Union and India (third and fourth place) combined. And America is still number one, by far, in cumulative emissions over the past 150 years. As a top contributor to global warming, the United States has an obligation to help propel the world to a cleaner, safer, and more equitable future. Our responsibility matters to other countries, and it should matter to us, too.

Is the United States doing anything to prevent global warming?

A: We've started. But in order to avoid the worsening effects of climate change, we need to do a lot more-together with other countries-to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and transition to clean energy sources.

Despite the lack of cooperation from the Trump administration, local and state governments made great strides during this period through efforts like the American Cities Climate Challenge and ongoing collaborations like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Meanwhile, industry and business leaders have been working with the public sector, creating and adopting new clean-energy technologies and increasing energy efficiency in buildings, appliances, and industrial processes. Today the American automotive industry is finding new ways to produce cars and trucks that are more fuel efficient and is committing itself to putting more and more zero-emission electric vehicles on the road. Developers, cities, and community advocates are coming together to make sure that new affordable housing is built with efficiency in mind, reducing energy consumption and lowering electric and heating bills for residents. And renewable energy continues to surge as the costs associated with its production and distribution keep falling. In 2020 renewable energy sources such as wind and solar provided more electricity than coal for the very first time in U.S. history.

Is global warming too big a problem for me to help tackle?

A: No! While we can't win the fight without large-scale government action at the national level, we also can't do it without the help of individuals who are willing to use their voices, hold government and industry leaders to account, and make changes in their daily habits.

Wondering how you can be a part of the fight against global warming? Reduce your own carbon footprint by taking a few easy steps: Make conserving energy a part of your daily routine and your decisions as a consumer. When you shop for new appliances like refrigerators, washers, and dryers, look for products with the government's ENERGY STAR ® label; they meet a higher standard for energy efficiency than the minimum federal requirements. When you buy a car, look for one with the highest gas mileage and lowest emissions. You can also reduce your emissions by taking public transportation or carpooling when possible.

And while new federal and state standards are a step in the right direction, much more needs to be done. Voice your support of climate-friendly and climate change preparedness policies, and tell your representatives that equitably transitioning from dirty fossil fuels to clean power should be a top priority-because it's vital to building healthy, more secure communities.

You don't have to go it alone, either. Movements across the country are showing how climate action can build community, be led by those on the front lines of its impacts, and create a future that's equitable and just for all.

This story was originally published on March 11, 2016 and has been updated with new information and links.

This NRDC.org story is available for online republication by news media outlets or nonprofits under these conditions: The writer(s) must be credited with a byline; you must note prominently that the story was originally published by NRDC.org and link to the original; the story cannot be edited (beyond simple things such as grammar); you can't resell the story in any form or grant republishing rights to other outlets; you can't republish our material wholesale or automatically-you need to select stories individually; you can't republish the photos or graphics on our site without specific permission; you should to let us know when you've used one of our stories.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is global warming? Global warming causes, effects, extreme weather, facts, and relation to climate change.