Delhi homeless to be given masks as smog worsens: official

New Delhi's homeless will be given cotton masks to help them survive in the world's most polluted major city, officials said Monday, although experts said the basic coverings would be useless against deadly smog particles.

Each winter the capital of 20 million chokes through haze so extreme that levels of airborne pollutants eclipse safe limits by more than 30 times. The poor and homeless suffer the worst, through constant exposure to a toxic brew of car fumes, factory exhaust, and construction dust. Measures to curb the smog—from reducing heavy goods traffic and firecrackers to banning farmers from using fire to clear their fields—have failed to clear the skies. Bipin Rai from Delhi's city government told AFP that 10,000 face masks would be given "to homeless families, women, patients, and children as pollution levels are on the rise". But experts said these masks offered little to no protection against the most poisonous pollutants in the air—particles are known as PM2.5 so small they can penetrate the heart and cardiovascular system."These masks are redundant, as fine particles harmful to the human body will not be filtered out.

Farmer adjustments can offset climate change impacts in corn production

There is widespread concern that global warming will have a strong negative effect on crop yields. Recent research published in Proceeding of the National Academy of Science on historical maize yield  across the US corn belt suggests that a continuation of the historical yield trend will depend on a stable climate and continued farmer adjustments.

Beaches at risk due to the increase in atmospheric CO2

Scientists have carried out the first scientific research on the ripple effects linking atmospheric emission, sea acidification and coastal erosion. The Mediterranean case study, a possible 31 percent decrease in sediment by 2100.

Mangroves can help countries mitigate their carbon emissions

Geographers have found that coastal vegetation such as mangroves, seagrasses and salt marshes may be the most effective habitats to mitigate carbon emissions.

Holocene temperature in the Iberian Peninsula reconstructed studying insect subfossils

Remains of chironomid sub fossils, a type of insects similar to mosquitoes, were used to reconstruct the temperature of the Iberian Peninsula in the Holocene, the geological period that goes from 11000 years ago until now. The results of the study demonstrate some of the climate patterns of the Holocene brought by other methodologies, a rise of temperature  in the beginning and the end of the period, higher temperature during the Holocene Climate and a decline of temperatures after the beginning of the Late Holocene.

Freshwater turtles navigate using the sun

A new study shows that simulating a clock shift of six hours causes hatchling Blanding's turtles to shift their course, demonstrating that the sun is central to their navigational compass. They use it to guide them to the nearest wetland and a place of safety.

Like polio eradication, India can script success in tackling air pollution too: UN Environment chief

India has scripted success in eradicating polio and tackling other health emergencies and there is no reason why the country cannot do so for air pollution, UN Environment chief Erik Solheim has said at a time several north Indian cities, including Delhi, are battling alarming levels of pollution.

Solheim has expressed confidence that the country can tackle air pollution, which he said is one of the world's biggest killers and a global public health emergency.

The UN Environment chief termed air pollution as a "crisis" that requires government, policy-makers, scientists and civil society to come together to mitigate, and asserted "we need to count on the support of the public in this".

Air pollution in cities in India, especially in Delhi and its neighbouring states, have reached alarming levels and had gone off the charts after Diwali when the air quality dipped to severe levels, prompting authorities to enforce emergency measures such as ban on construction activities and entry of heavy vehicles into the national capital.

"The sad truth is that Indian cities are not alone in their suffering. Poor air quality is one of the world's biggest killers and a global public health emergency. This was clear at the recent WHO conference on air pollution, where air pollution was declared on a par with tobacco in the nature of the risk it poses to human life.

"Living in a city should not mean accepting that you have to shave years off your life, lose cognitive capabilities or watch helplessly as children and the elderly gasp for breath. India has scripted such success with polio eradication and other health emergencies, there is absolutely no reason why the country cannot do it for air pollution," Solheim told PTI.
The UN Environment chief said there is no "magic single solution" to the problem, but rather a range of actions that can be taken by individuals, city authorities and governments.

He said that for the UN Environment, air pollution is a high priority area.

"Science is crucial as filling the data gap -- which we are trying to do by rolling out a low-cost, inter-connected air quality monitoring system -- will help policy-makers make informed decisions that will translate into quick improvements.

Hundreds of environment agency staff redirected to work on Brexit

Hundreds of staff who protect biodiversity and enforce environmental regulations in the UK have been redeployed to work on Brexit.

The raid on staff from the Environment Agency, which is responsible for enforcing rules on recycling, air pollution and protecting the country from flooding, and Natural England, which protects habitats and species, has been condemned by MPs.

Mary Creagh, chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, on Thursday published a letter from the environment secretary, Michael Gove, which reveals 400 staff have been moved from these agencies to work centrally on Brexit.
The staff moves come as the Department for Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) rushes to prepare for a no-deal Brexit, which will have a particular impact on dairy and chemical exports.Gove’s letter says some of the enforcement and protection work the staff do will be reallocated or paused for now, raising fears that vulnerable habitats and species are being left unprotected because of the chaos over Brexit.

“Preparations for leaving the EU must not get in the way of protecting our treasured natural spaces and iconic British wildlife,” said Creagh.“It is disappointing that Defra has raided staff at Natural England, the organisation responsible for protecting some of the most highly valued wildlife areas in England, to prepare for Brexit.

“Natural England must not become a poor relation to Defra. Ministers must ensure the valuable work it does to promote biodiversity is given the priority it deserves.”Gove said in his letter that 50 staff have been redeployed from Natural England, 13 of whom worked to protect sites of special scientific interest in the UK.The other 350 have been taken from the Environment Agency and other Defra groups.

Creagh raised concerns in September over the vulnerability of England’s sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs). The agency has revealed that over two years the number of SSSIs which are in an unfavourable condition has increased.

Defra is responsible for almost a fifth of the work across government on Brexit, including farming, fisheries, the environment, and food and chemical industries. The National Audit Office said in September the department would not be ready for a no-deal Brexit.

Retailers to pay up to £1bn for recycling under waste strategy

Supermarkets, retailers and major drinks brands are set to pay tens of millions of pounds more towards recycling their used packaging under the government’s new waste strategy expected to be published this month, the Guardian understands.

Supermarkets and other major producers of packaging waste currently pay a small fraction of the cost of collecting and recycling the 11m tonnes of packaging waste produced in the UK.Ministers are considering several options to improve recycling, stop abuses to the export market in plastic packaging and make companies pay more towards collecting and recycling their own waste.Sources with knowledge of the new waste strategy, which is due to be published in a few weeks, said it contained plans to significantly increase contributions from retailers and producers from an average of about £70m a year to between £500m and £1bn a year.

In 2017 local authorities spent £700m on collecting and sorting recycling, compared with £73m from major businesses including leading supermarket chains and retailers, according to the National Audit Office. There are also plans to increase the number of companies who have to contribute, from 7,002 at the moment, to include smaller producers.
Any new system must take into account the EU circular economy package, which the British government has signed and which should roll over into UK law after Brexit. It requires food and drink companies and other retailers to cover the net costs of household recycling collections by local authorities, bringing the UK in line with other European countries such as Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands.

Abuses and corruption go largely undetected in the current system while many large companies dodge paying entirely. The structure encourages the export of plastic waste to countries where it can end up leaking into the ocean or going to landfill rather than contributing to investment in UK reprocessing.

How the cleaning craze is damaging the environment

In our newly plastic-conscious world, where restaurants and bars are encouraged to ditch the straws (at the expense of those with disabilities, on a side note) and forgetting your reusable cup and shopping bag is a shameful offence, the sudden drive to clean more than before – and, as a result, buy more of those plastic-contained cleaning products – feels wrong

Julian Kirby, Friends of the Earth plastics campaigner, wants to encourage those who want a clean home to think about the cleanliness of the planet, too. ‘Unfortunately too many cleaning products are packaged in single-use plastic – much of which won’t be recycled, and end up polluting our planet and harming our wildlife,’ Julian tells Metro.co.uk. ‘Cleaning products can also contain things like bleach or phosphates that can be harmful to the environment.’ Phosphates, often found in detergents, have a fertilising effect for algae, which takes up oxygen in the water and kills off other sealife. Bleach products can react with other minerals in water to create dangerous substances that take years to wash away. Those substances can be toxic for sealife but can also come back to bite us humans, aggravating sensitive skin and those with allergies. In spray cleaners and air fresheners you’re likely to find hydrocarbons and compressed gases, which contribute to global warming and pollute our air. Every cleaning product you use on your toilet, sink, on your dishes, and every other surface you scrub to perfection, will eventually be rinsed down your drain, where it’ll head to water treatment facilities, where it’s then pushed into rivers, lakes, and oceans. Not every chemical in those products will be removed at treatment centres, and will instead end up in our water sources. A small amount wouldn’t be a massive problem, but if we’re all significantly upping our use of these products and the frequency with which we clean, that’ll increase the contaminants ending up in our water, affecting ocean life.

Then there are the wipes cleaning fans use to swipe away grime on their toilet seats and kitchen counters. Again, they’re covered with all those harsh chemicals, but also typically contain plastics which take decades to break down. Whether you flush ’em or chuck them in the bin, they’re an environmental disaster, causing fatbergs, ending up on our beaches, and polluting the sea. And, of course, the packaging. The majority of cleaning products come in plastic containers that are chucked after use. They’re often difficult to recycle and have a high proportion of packaging to contents. If the packaging of a cleaning product is thrown in the recycling bin without being properly washed (so it’s clean of those harsh chemicals we mentioned), it could end up diverting an entire load of recycling to the landfill thanks to the risk of contamination. Obviously the more often you clean, the more of these products you use. That means more chemicals and more packaging. With the cleaning craze encouraging us to have stacks of bleach and squeaky clean sprays, all neatly packaged in colourful containers that look snazzy enough for the ‘gram, it’s taking us down a pretty damaging environmental path. The trend creates higher standards of cleanliness, suggesting that our homes must be perfectly sparkling, and encourages more frequent cleaning (and thus more product use) by setting it up as a cool activity you can share as an online bonding experience. In short: The cleaning craze is not good for the environment. Sorry. But does that mean you have to let the dishes stack up and let a film of grime settle on your otherwise stunning home? Absolutely not. It’s very, very difficult to be perfect when it comes to your environmental impact, and there are definitely benefits to cleaning regularly. Leaving rotting food and outside dirt hanging about on your surfaces for weeks on end wouldn’t be pleasant

If the environment isn't the government's responsibility, whose is it?

In a recent decision by the Supreme Court, our ability as students to call for change and have direct impact on environmental issues was upheld. This past Friday, the Supreme Court denied the Trump administration’s request to dismiss the Juliana vs. United States case. This case, brought by plaintiffs ranging from 10 to 21 years of age, alleges that the federal government has harmed living conditions for the citizens of Oregon by permitting the burning of fossil fuels, despite knowing what the negative effects would be. The plaintiffs have reasonably argued that the government’s prioritization of the fossil fuel industry over the environment is a direct violation of their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as these rights become less accessible in a declining environment. The federal government should respond to these demands by combating climate change through further regulations on the fossil fuel industry.

Both the Obama and Trump administrations have responded by claiming that there is no legally precedented right to live in a clean environment. Further, the government has claimed that the suit calls for an unreasonable overhaul of the American energy system at the hand of the federal government, and worse, one that is demanded by a group of “21 children and youth” instead of higher authorities. They may be correct in stating that there is no legal precedent in the constitution for a right to a clean environment, but that can be explained by the fact that climate change sped up during the industrial revolution — after the Constitution was written. The founding fathers likely did not foresee oil rigs or cars when they sat down at the Philadelphia Convention. I am calling for courts to recognize this when further deliberation of Juliana occurs, forcing the federal government to put its citizens’ interests over the interests of big oil.

The relationship between the lobbyists and the federal government is not one-sided, as the two must work together to come to agreements regarding policy and regulations. Just as the lobbyists can influence the government, the government can regulate the industry; perhaps this can be done in a way that is mutually beneficial through government subsidization or international trade support. Juliana does not call for the federal government to radically change their mode of action — rather, because the plaintiffs see the government’s current mode simply as inactivity, it calls for the government to create new regulations on a relatively unrestrained industry. This is especially true given that the Trump administration is in the process of rolling back many Environmental Protection Agency regulations, including the Clean Power Act that serves to regulate carbon emissions from power plants and a crucial requirement that oil and gas companies report methane leaks.

The federal government should recognize that it is every citizen’s right to reside in a healthy and sustainable environment. As college students, we are a part of that demographic of “21 children and youth”, demanding more consideration of the environment from our government is entirely reasonable, as we will directly experience the effects of an unregulated fossil fuel industry in the upcoming decades. The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are being violated by the terrifying environmental changes we are facing. For one, the emission of PM2.5 from fossil fuels has a direct impact on human respiratory and cardiovascular health, and even more long-term impacts on overall health. It is reasonable to characterize these impacts as a violation of the right to life and pursuit of happiness, when both would be difficult to achieve with severe health issues.

The response by both the Trump and Obama administrations begs the following question —  if it is unreasonable for the federal government to carry out the changes necessary to slow climate change, then into whose domain does this task fall? Some would argue that it is up to the state governments to regulate the fossil fuel industry, rather than the federal government. Though state administrations can attempt to mitigate some of the local effects of the fossil fuel industry, systematic change in the how the industry functions and what it prioritizes will not occur until national organizations, such as the EPA or National Institute of Health, step up to advocate for U.S. residents’ health and well-being. The same can be said to refute the idea that it is the responsibility of individuals to fight the negative effects of the fossil fuel industry.

As residents of the United States, we can attempt to combat climate change through many small efforts, such as eating less meat, avoiding cars in favor of bicycles, and recycling correctly. Even so, our individual impact on the environment pales in comparison to that of the fossil fuel industry. To combat that impact, a much more powerful force is necessary: this is where the federal government should step up. Of course, this may prove to be difficult given the fossil fuel industry’s influence on the government: fossil fuel lobbyists spent $370 million from 2000 to 2016 alone. This is ten times more than environmental advocate lobbyist groups spent in the same period. Without the same monetary access to influence over the federal government, residents (like the plaintiffs of Juliana) cannot be expected to combat the environmental impact.

The Supreme Court’s refusal to dismiss Juliana vs. United States represents a recognition that the federal government should step up to prioritize the constitutional right to health and well-being through combating environmental pollution, regardless of what the fossil fuel lobby might think.

Putting the brakes on fast fashion

Fashion revolves around the latest trends but is the industry behind the curve on the only trend that ultimately matters - the need to radically alter our patterns of consumption to ensure the survival of the planet.

The fashion industry produces 20 per cent of global wastewater and 10 per cent of global carbon emissions - more than all international flights and maritime shipping. Textile dyeing is the second largest polluter of water globally and it takes around 2,000 gallons of water to make a typical pair of jeans.

Every second, the equivalent of one garbage truck of textiles is landfilled or burned. If nothing changes, by 2050 the fashion industry will use up a quarter of the world’s carbon budget. Washing clothes also releases half a million tonnes of microfibres into the ocean every year.

Then there is the human cost: textile workers are often paid derisory wages and forced to work long hours in appalling conditions. But with consumers increasingly demanding change, the fashion world is finally responding with A-listers, like Duchess Meghan Markle, leading the way with their clothing choices and designers looking to break the take-make-waste model.

“Most fashion retailers now are doing something about sustainability and have some initiatives focused on reducing fashion’s negative impact on the environment,” says Patsy Perry, senior lecturer in fashion marketing at the University of Manchester. For example, last year, Britain’s Stella McCartney teamed up with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation to launch a report on redesigning fashion’s future.

“However, there is still a fundamental problem with the fast fashion business model where revenues are based on selling more products, and therefore retailers must constantly offer new collections. It would be unrealistic to expect consumers to stop shopping on a large scale, so going forward, I would expect to see more development and wider adoption of more sustainable production methods such as waterless dyeing, using waste as a raw material, and development of innovative solutions to the textile waste problem,” she says.

Pioneering solutions to address environmental challenges will be at the heart of the fourth UN Environment Assembly next March. The meeting’s motto is to think beyond prevailing patterns and live within sustainable limits—a message that will resonate with fashion designers and retailers seeking to reform their industry.

At the March meeting, UN Environment will formally launch the UN Alliance on Sustainable Fashion to encourage the private sector, governments and non-governmental organizations to create an industry-wide push for action to reduce fashion’s negative social, economic and environmental impact and turn it into a driver for the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Across the United Nations, agencies are working to make fashion more sustainable, from the Food and Agricultural Organization protecting arable land, to the Ethical Fashion Initiative set up by the International Trade Centre to the work of UN Environment in fostering sustainable manufacturing practices.

And some entrepreneurs are already designing the fashion of the future:

Spain’s Ecoalf creates shoes from algae and recycled plastic as part of its Upcycling the Oceans collection. Founded by Javier Goyeneche in 2012, Ecoalf collects ocean plastics from 33 ports and turns the trash into shoes, clothing and bags.
In Amsterdam, GumDrop collects gum and turns it into a new kind of rubber, Gum-tec, which is then used to make shoes in collaboration with marketing group I Amsterdam and fashion company Explicit. GumDrop says around 3.3 million pounds of gum end up on Amsterdam’s paths every year, costing millions of dollars to clean. It takes around 2.2 pounds of gum to make four pairs of sneakers.
Outdoor gear retailer Patagonia, based in California, has been producing fleece jackets using polyester from recycled bottles since 1993, working with Polartec, a Massachusetts-based textile designer. Patagonia also encourages shoppers to buy only what they need, and mends and recycles older items.
Gothenburg-based Nudie Jeans uses organic cotton for its jeans and offers free repairs for life. Customers also get a discount if they hand in their old jeans.
Cambodia-based Tonlé uses surplus fabric from mass clothing manufacturers to create zero-waste fashion collections. It uses more than 97 per cent of the material it receives and turns the rest into paper. 
In the Netherlands, Wintervacht turns blankets and curtains into coats and jackets. Designers Yoni van Oorsouw and Manon van Hoeckel find their raw materials in secondhand shops and sorting facilities where donations are processed. San Francisco- and Bali-based Indosole turns discarded tyres in Indonesia into shoes, sandals and flip-flops, while Swiss firm Freitag upcycles tarpaulins, seat belts and bicycle inner tubes to make their bags and backpacks.
In New York, Queen of Raw connects designers, architects and textile firms with dead stock of sustainable fabrics from factories, brands and retailers. Queen of Raw says more than US$120 billion worth of unused fabric sits in warehouses, waiting to be burned or buried.
Novel Supply, based in Canada, makes clothes from natural and organic fabrics and is developing a take-back programme to find alternative ways to use garments at the end of their life. For founder Kaya Dorey, winner of UN Environment’s Young Champion of the Earth award in 2017, the aim is to create a zero-waste, closed-loop fashion model.
Retailer H&M has a successful garment collection scheme and in October, lifestyle brand and jeans manufacturer Guess said it was teaming up with i:Collect, which collects, sorts and recycles clothes and footwear worldwide, to launch a wardrobe recycling programme in the US. Customers who bring in five or more items of clothing or shoes, will receive discounts. Wearable items will be recycled as secondhand goods, while unwearable items will be turned into new products like cleaning cloths or made into fibres for products like insulation.