Water Supply, sanitation and hygiene development

Water Supply, sanitation and hygiene development

Around 1.1 billion people globally do not have access to improved water supply sources whereas 2.4 billion people do not have access to any type of improved sanitation facility. About 2 million people die every year due to diarrhoeal diseases, most of them are children less than 5 years of age. The most affected are the populations in developing countries, living in extreme conditions of poverty, normally peri-urban dwellers or rural inhabitants. Among the main problems which are responsible for this situation are: lack of priority given to the sector, lack of financial resources, lack of sustainability of water supply and sanitation services, poor hygiene behaviours, and inadequate sanitation in public places including hospitals, health centres and schools. Providing access to sufficient quantities of safe water, the provision of facilities for a sanitary disposal of excreta, and introducing sound hygiene behaviours are of capital importance to reduce the burden of disease caused by these risk factors.
The work of WHO in this field covers the following topics:
Operation and maintenance
Environmental sanitation and hygiene development
Healthy settings
Environmental health in emergencies and disasters
Water and sanitation on ships and aircrafts
Household water treatment and safe storage
See alsoInternational Year of Sanitation 2008 International health regulations Revision of the International Health Regulations [pdf 400kb]
SUBSCRIBE
Subscribe to the WATERSANITATION mailing list
EVENTS
Household Water Treatment & Safe Storage Network [pdf 147kb]Technical Meeting21–23 September 2009
International Year of Sanitation 2008
HIGHLIGHTS
Health and Environment LexiconLink to the database
List of publications in alphabetical orderFull text
RECENT PUBLICATIONS
Calcium and Magnesium in Drinking-water: Public health significance
Water Safety Plan Manual: Step-by-step risk management for drinking-water suppliers
Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, Second Addendum to the 3rd Edition Volume 1 - Recommendations
Corporate linksContacts E-mail scams Employment FAQs Feedback Privacy RSS feeds © WHO 2009

Water Supply and Sanitation Monitoring

At the end of the International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade (1981-1990), WHO and UNICEF established a Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation (JMP). The overall aim of the JMP is to report globally on the status of water supply and sanitation sector, and to support countries in improving their monitoring performance to enable better planning and management at the country level. The JMP is the official arrangement within the UN System to produce information for the UN Secretary General on the progress of achieving the Millennium Development Goals related to water supply and sanitation.
Although the JMP has been producing coverage reports since 1990, it was only in 2000 that the JMP statistics were based mainly on data from household surveys such as Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) and World Health Surveys (WHS). The reports listed below (available for downloading) are the latest JMP reports, all of them based on survey information.UN-Water Global Annual Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking-Water (GLAAS) Progress on Drinking-water and Sanitation: special focus on sanitation A Snapshot of Sanitation in Africa Meeting the MDG drinking-water and sanitation target: the urban and rural challenge of the decade Water for life: Making it happen. WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Report, 2005 WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation Sanitation: Meeting the MDG drinking water and sanitation target, 2004 Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment 2000 Report
See alsoCore questions on drinking-water and sanitation for household surveys Asia Water Watch 2015
Additional information on JMP can be seen at: www.wssinfo.org.
SUBSCRIBE
Subscribe to the WATERSANITATION mailing list
EVENTS
Household Water Treatment & Safe Storage Network [pdf 147kb]Technical Meeting21–23 September 2009
International Year of Sanitation 2008
HIGHLIGHTS
Health and Environment LexiconLink to the database
List of publications in alphabetical orderFull text
RECENT PUBLICATIONS
Calcium and Magnesium in Drinking-water: Public health significance
Water Safety Plan Manual: Step-by-step risk management for drinking-water suppliers
Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, Second Addendum to the 3rd Edition Volume 1 - Recommendations

Water Sanitation and Health (WSH)

An important fraction of the burden of water-related diseases (in particular: water-related vector-borne diseases) is attributable to the way water resources are developed and managed. In many parts of the world the adverse health impacts of water pollution, dam construction, irrigation development and flood control cause significant preventable disease.
WHO’s Water, Sanitation and Health Programme focuses on: - Water resource quality - Health impact assessment - Intersectoral collaboration - Environmental management
It also explores options to integrate health risk assessment and management into strategies and programmes for nature conservation, in particular of wetlands, and for the promotion of biological diversity.
See also- Water, sanitation and hygiene links to health: facts and figures updated November 2004 - Publications on health in water resources development - Useful links - Posters

Water, Sanitation and Hygiene

WHO works on aspects of water, sanitation and hygiene where the health burden is high, where interventions could make a major difference and where the present state of knowledge is poor: :: Drinking-water quality :: Bathing waters :: Water resources :: Water supply and sanitation monitoring :: Water, sanitation and hygiene development :: Wastewater use :: Water-related disease :: Healthcare waste :: Emerging issues in water and infectious disease
Our work on water sanitation and hygiene includes the six core functions of WHO:
articulating consistent, ethical and evidence-based policy and advocacy positions;
managing information by assessing trends and comparing performance; setting the agenda for, and stimulating, research and development;
catalysing change through technical and policy support, in ways that stimulate cooperation and action and help to build sustainable national and intercountry capacity;
negotiating and sustaining national and global partnerships;
setting, validating, monitoring and pursuing the proper implementation of norms and standards;
stimulating the development and testing of new technologies, tools and guidelines.
All current information on water, sanitation and health is available on the internet. :: Browse the WSH catalogue of information products [pdf 4.17Mb] :: Browse the alphabetical list of documents available online
In addition, information is available here on: :: Our aim and objectives :: Our present plan of work :: Our collaborating centres :: Water-related work of WHO Regional Offices
SUBSCRIBE
Subscribe to the WATERSANITATION mailing list
EVENTS
Household Water Treatment & Safe Storage Network [pdf 147kb]Technical Meeting21–23 September 2009
International Year of Sanitation 2008
HIGHLIGHTS
Health and Environment LexiconLink to the database
List of publications in alphabetical orderFull text
RECENT PUBLICATIONS
Calcium and Magnesium in Drinking-water: Public health significance
Water Safety Plan Manual: Step-by-step risk management for drinking-water suppliers
Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, Second Addendum to the 3rd Edition Volume 1 - Recommendations

Indoor air pollution

More than three billion people worldwide continue to depend on solid fuels, including biomass fuels (wood, dung, agricultural residues) and coal, for their energy needs.
Cooking and heating with solid fuels on open fires or traditional stoves results in high levels of indoor air pollution. Indoor smoke contains a range of health-damaging pollutants, such as small particles and carbon monoxide, and particulate pollution levels may be 20 times higher than accepted guideline values.
According to The world health report 2002 indoor air pollution is responsible for 2.7% of the global burden of disease.
WHO’s Programme on Indoor Air Pollution
To combat this substantial and growing burden of disease, WHO has developed a comprehensive programme to support developing countries. WHO's Programme on Indoor Air Pollution focuses on:- Research and evaluation - Capacity building - Evidence for policy-makers

CLIMATIC CHANGE

The Earth is the only planet in our solar system that supports life. The complex process of evolution occurred on Earth only because of some unique environmental conditions that were present: water, an oxygen-rich atmosphere, and a suitable surface temperature.
The Earth's climate system constantly adjusts so as to maintain a balance between the energy that reaches it from the sun and the energy that goes from Earth back to space. This means that even a small rise in temperature could mean accompanying changes in cloud cover and wind patterns.
It is not just man-made pollution of the atmosphere which can cause climate change. Changes in the way ocean water circulates around the world can also influence climate, because the oceans store even more heat than the atmosphere.
Over the last 150-200 years climate change has been taking place too rapidly and certain plant and animal species have found it hard to adapt. Human activities are said to be responsible for the speed at which this change has occurred and it is now a cause of worry to scientists.
The atmosphere surrounding the earth is made up of nitrogen (78%), oxygen (21%) and the remainder, 1%, is made up of trace gases (called so because they are present in very small quantities) that include the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, water vapor, and nitrous oxide. These greenhouse gases act as a blanket and protect it from the harmful ultra violet rays of the sun. They can also be regarded as natural controllers of the earth's temperature system.

Causes of climate change
The earth's climate is dynamic and always changing through a natural cycle. What the world is more worried about is that the changes that are occurring today have been speeded up because of man's activities. These changes are being studied by scientists all over the world who are finding evidence from tree rings, pollen samples, ice cores, and sea sediments. The causes of climate change can be divided into two categories - those that are due to natural causes and those that are created by man. Natural causes There are a number of natural factors responsible for climate change. Some of the more prominent ones are continental drift, volcanoes, ocean currents, the earth's tilt, and comets and meteorites. Let's look at them in a little detail.
Continental drift
You may have noticed something peculiar about South America and Africa on a map of the world - don't they seem to fit into each other like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle?
About 200 million years ago they were joined together. Scientists believe that back then, the earth was not as we see it today, but the continents were all part of one large landmass. Proof of this comes from the similarity between plant and animal fossils and broad belts of rocks found on the eastern coastline of South America and western coastline of Africa, which are now widely separated by the Atlantic Ocean. The discovery of fossils of tropical plants (in the form of coal deposits) in Antarctica has led to the conclusion that this frozen land at some time in the past, must have been situated closer to the equator, where the climate was tropical, with swamps and plenty of lush vegetation.
The continents that we are familiar with today were formed when the landmass began gradually drifting apart, millions of years back. This drift also had an impact on the climate because it changed the physical features of the landmass, their position and the position of water bodies. The separation of the landmasses changed the flow of ocean currents and winds, which affected the climate. This drift of the continents continues even today; the Himalayan range is rising by about 1 mm (millimeter) every year because the Indian land mass is moving towards the Asian land mass, slowly but steadily.Volcanoes
When a volcano erupts it throws out large volumes of sulfur dioxide (SO2), water vapor, dust, and ash into the atmosphere. Although the volcanic activity may last only a few days, the large volumes of gases and ash can influence climatic patterns for years. Millions of tons of sulfur dioxide gas can reach the upper levels of the atmosphere (called the stratosphere) from a major eruption. The gases and dust particles partially block the incoming rays of the sun, leading to cooling. Sulfur dioxide combines with water to form tiny droplets of sulfuric acid. These droplets are so small that many of them can stay aloft for several years. They are efficient reflectors of sunlight, and screen the ground from some of the energy that it would ordinarily receive from the sun. Winds in the upper levels of the atmosphere, called the stratosphere, carry the aerosols rapidly around the globe in either an easterly or westerly direction. Movement of aerosols north and south is always much slower. This should give you some idea of the ways by which cooling can be brought about for a few years after a major volcanic eruption. Mount Pinatoba, in the Philippine islands erupted in April 1991 emitting thousands of tons of gases into the atmosphere. Volcanic eruptions of this magnitude can reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface, lowering temperatures in the lower levels of the atmosphere (called the troposphere), and changing atmospheric circulation patterns. The extent to which this occurs is an ongoing debate. Another striking example was in the year 1816, often referred to as "the year without a summer." Significant weather-related disruptions occurred in New England and in Western Europe with killing summer frosts in the United States and Canada. These strange phenomena were attributed to a major eruption of the Tambora volcano in Indonesia, in 1815.

The earth's tilt
The earth makes one full orbit around the sun each year. It is tilted at an angle of 23.5° to the perpendicular plane of its orbital path. For one half of the year when it is summer, the northern hemisphere tilts towards the sun. In the other half when it is winter, the earth is tilted away from the sun. If there was no tilt we would not have experienced seasons. Changes in the tilt of the earth can affect the severity of the seasons - more tilt means warmer summers and colder winters; less tilt means cooler summers and milder winters.The Earth's orbit is somewhat elliptical, which means that the distance between the earth and the Sun varies over the course of a year. We usually think of the earth's axis as being fixed, after all, it always seems to point toward Polaris (also known as the Pole Star and the North Star). Actually, it is not quite constant: the axis does move, at the rate of a little more than a half-degree each century. So Polaris has not always been, and will not always be, the star pointing to the North. When the pyramids were built, around 2500 BC, the pole was near the star Thuban (Alpha Draconis). This gradual change in the direction of the earth's axis, called precession is responsible for changes in the climate.
Ocean currents
The oceans are a major component of the climate system. They cover about 71% of the Earth and absorb about twice as much of the sun's radiation as the atmosphere or the land surface. Ocean currents move vast amounts of heat across the planet - roughly the same amount as the atmosphere does. But the oceans are surrounded by land masses, so heat transport through the water is through channels. Winds push horizontally against the sea surface and drive ocean current patterns. Certain parts of the world are influenced by ocean currents more than others. The coast of Peru and other adjoining regions are directly influenced by the Humboldt current that flows along the coastline of Peru. The El Niño event in the Pacific Ocean can affect climatic conditions all over the world.Another region that is strongly influenced by ocean currents is the North Atlantic. If we compare places at the same latitude in Europe and North America the effect is immediately obvious. Take a closer look at this example - some parts of coastal Norway have an average temperature of -2°C in January and 14°C in July; while places at the same latitude on the Pacific coast of Alaska are far colder: -15°C in January and only 10°C in July. The warm current along the Norewgian coast keeps much of the Greenland-Norwegian Sea free of ice even in winter. The rest of the Arctic Ocean, even though it is much further south, remains frozen. Ocean currents have been known to change direction or slow down. Much of the heat that escapes from the oceans is in the form of water vapour, the most abundant greenhouse gas on Earth. Yet, water vapor also contributes to the formation of clouds, which shade the surface and have a net cooling effect. Any or all of these phenomena can have an impact on the climate, as is believed to have happened at the end of the last Ice Age, about 14,000 years ago.

Human causes
The Industrial Revolution in the 19th century saw the large-scale use of fossil fuels for industrial activities. These industries created jobs and over the years, people moved from rural areas to the cities. This trend is continuing even today. More and more land that was covered with vegetation has been cleared to make way for houses. Natural resources are being used extensively for construction, industries, transport, and consumption. Consumerism (our increasing want for material things) has increased by leaps and bounds, creating mountains of waste. Also, our population has increased to an incredible extent. All this has contributed to a rise in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas supply most of the energy needed to run vehicles, generate electricity for industries, households, etc. The energy sector is responsible for about ¾ of the carbon dioxide emissions, 1/5 of the methane emissions and a large quantity of nitrous oxide. It also produces nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO) which are not greenhouse gases but do have an influence on the chemical cycles in the atmosphere that produce or destroy greenhouse gases.Greenhouse gases and their sources
Carbon dioxide is undoubtedly, the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Changes in land use pattern, deforestation, land clearing, agriculture, and other activities have all led to a rise in the emission of carbon dioxide. Methane is another important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. About ¼ of all methane emissions are said to come from domesticated animals such as dairy cows, goats, pigs, buffaloes, camels, horses, and sheep. These animals produce methane during the cud-chewing process. Methane is also released from rice or paddy fields that are flooded during the sowing and maturing periods. When soil is covered with water it becomes anaerobic or lacking in oxygen. Under such conditions, methane-producing bacteria and other organisms decompose organic matter in the soil to form methane. Nearly 90% of the paddy-growing area in the world is found in Asia, as rice is the staple food there. China and India, between them, have 80-90% of the world's rice-growing areas.Methane is also emitted from landfills and other waste dumps. If the waste is put into an incinerator or burnt in the open, carbon dioxide is emitted. Methane is also emitted during the process of oil drilling, coal mining and also from leaking gas pipelines (due to accidents and poor maintenance of sites). A large amount of nitrous oxide emission has been attributed to fertilizer application. This in turn depends on the type of fertilizer that is used, how and when it is used and the methods of tilling that are followed. Contributions are also made by leguminous plants, such as beans that add nitrogen to the soil.
How we all contribute every day
All of us in our daily lives contribute our bit to this change in the climate. Give these points a good, serious thought:
- Electricity is the main source of power in urban areas. All our gadgets run on electricity generated mainly from thermal power plants. These thermal power plants are run on fossil fuels (mostly coal) and are responsible for the emission of huge amounts of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. - Cars, buses, and trucks are the principal ways by which goods and people are transported in most of our cities. These are run mainly on petrol or diesel, both fossil fuels. - We generate large quantities of waste in the form of plastics that remain in the environment for many years and cause damage. - We use a huge quantity of paper in our work at schools and in offices. Have we ever thought about the number of trees that we use in a day? - Timber is used in large quantities for construction of houses, which means that large areas of forest have to be cut down.- A growing population has meant more and more mouths to feed. Because the land area available for agriculture is limited (and in fact, is actually shrinking as a result of ecological degradation), high-yielding varieties of crop are being grown to increase the agricultural output from a given area of land. However, such high-yielding varieties of crops require large quantities of fertilizers; and more fertilizer means more emissions of nitrous oxide, both from the field into which it is put and the fertilizer industry that makes it. Pollution also results from the run-off of fertilizer into water bodies.

Hungary Environment

Hungary has a temperate continental climate that is influenced by three main factors: the Eastern-European continental, the Western-European oceanic and the Mediterranean influence. Located in the lowest part of the Carpathian Basin, 84% of the country lies below 200m, with only 2% above 400m (mountain peaks reach 1015m in the north) and river gradients are generally low. Rivers enter from the west, north and east and drain southwards. The Hungarian Danube traverses 417km, forming the border with Slovakia in the NW and thereafter flowing south. In the east, also flowing southwards is the Tisza, covering 595km before reaching Serbia and Montenegro where it later flows into the Danube.
Because of the climate and geography, Hungary is vulnerable to any climatic changes brought about by global warming. Over the last several years, average summer temperature increased by 1°C, while spring temperatures increased by 0.77°C. In the autumn the temperatures are higher by 0.4-0.5°C and winters are warmer by 0.76°C. Additionally, the frequency of floods tripled during the last decade. Based on studies, during the last 50 years significant floods occurred 5-6 times a year and very large floods happened every 10-12 years. During the last nine years there were six big floods on the Hungarian rivers. Increased erosion of hillside land in neiboring countries and incresed urbanization in Hungary seem to be the most significant factors.
Hungary’s location is unique as it is in a basin surrounded by mountains that are located in other countries. This means that national practices of Austria, Slovakia, the Ukraine and Romania affect the Hungarian environment.
For example, In 2000 a dam leaked cyanide from a Romanian gold mine into the Tiza River, a tributary of the Danube, killing all forms of aquatic life for 250 miles (400 km) downstream. In Hungary about 85 tons of dead fish were removed from the Tiza River. In another recent example, high levels of toxic chemicals were found in the Raba, a border river of Hungary and Austria. Leather factories along the river in Austria who according to Austrian law are legally discharging into the river. These legal discharges are thought to be the source of the contamination in Hungary.
In 2003 a project, supported by the Ministry of Environment and Water and the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, was commissioned to prepare a study about the potential future of environmental challenges. The project called VAHAVA, Changing (VÁltozás) Impact (HAtás) Response (VÁlaszadás), - the past, the present and the future forecasts.
The main scope of the project was to adapt and respond to climate change impacts.
In addition, the report point out the need to develop a strategy for a more sustainable life style in Hungary, through the use of renewable energy. Currently only 3% of the country’s energy has a source of renewable energy: biomass (wood) and geothermal sources. The structure of the energy sector should be changed to incorporate the use of wind, solar, geothermal energy and second generation biofuels such as ethanol from cellulosic materials.
In June of 2007, Hungary adopted a climate change law. In reponse to this law, the Hungarian National Climate Change Strategy for 2008-2025 was created. The pillars for this strategy are the followings:
- Decrease in emissions, change of energy structure: Hungary is further striving to keep up with the Kyoto emission rates. Another objective is to change consumer behaviour towards conscious energy saving.
- Increase in energy efficiency: New financial sources should support climate saving processes, which could lead to the growth of efficiency.
- Change of government support in the field of energy: This should include new strategies where concerned people should be induced with policy instruments to increase energy-usage efficiency. Another objective is to provide financial support for renewable energy.
- Decrease of carbon-intensity in the field of traffic and transport :Mass transport ratio should be increased, parallel to developing the infrastructure for enabling cycling in the city. Cycling routes should not only be created in the capital and main cities, but all around the country. Regarding transportation, the proportion of non-road transportation should be increased, by also developing local infrastructure (e.g. train network). Regarding governmental actions higher emissions should lead to higher taxes, which is expected to be included into the road taxes. Besides that conscious city planning should facilitate efficient traffic and transportation too: more developed mass transport system, city planning, more pedestrian zones).
- Waste treatment: Waste treatment should be also developed, especially by the new structure of collecting and recycling useful waste. As a governmental initiative, further legal and economic measures should be introduced, partly as incentives for the people.

The Hungarian National Climate Change plan is a great start for a country-level plan to combat climate issues. The primarily objective should be however to change living styles and to support every-day people in changing their lifestyle to live sustainable in the future.
The missing focus of the plan is that the government (and maybe people too) should facilitate the creation of local communities who could help in teams and small groups to accomplish achieve the goal of sustainability.
The Hungarian government and officials have to prepare for the fact that climate change may have a disparate effect on certain underprivileged regions, the poor and the elderly. As suggested by the VAHAVA professionals a plan should be developed to support communities in creating local self-support projects.

A healthy natural environment is our safety net for climate change

Today is a significant one for our thinking about climate change, with the latest government projections now suggesting that average summer temperatures will increase by up to 6C, with peaks in London over 40C..
Even under the old scenarios we were looking at a life-changing alteration in our climate and we have already had a taste of some of the potential impacts – the heatwave of 2003, for example, resulted in the death of over 2,000 people in the UK. By the 2040s, that could be just another normal summer. And floods such as those we saw in 2007 – and which cost an estimated £3bn – will be far more commonplace.
These changes will also have an enormous impact on our wildlife and the habitats they rely on. Some of our green and pleasant land could become a dry and dusty one within decades, and some of our native species will face a major struggle for survival.
In the face of these challenges , the imperative of conservation is no longer – if it ever was – about preservation: it's about adaptation and enabling the environment to function naturally. In the process, we may need to accept that some of our wildlife – especially species at the edge of their range – will leave us.
A few animals, like the capercaillie, mountain ringlet or mountain hare, are facing extinction if climate change takes hold in the way that is predicted. But the majority of our wildlife will adapt to the climate if we enable it to do so – by improving natural habitats or managing our landscapes so that they species can migrate in step with the climate. And at the same time we have already seen new species from overseas colonising these shores in increasing numbers – little egrets are now well established, turtles are more commonly sighted off our coastline and butterflies are moving in from Europe.
To some, a healthy natural environment may seem an unaffordable luxury when society is faced with major climatic threats to homes and livelihoods. Many will argue that we need to invest more heavily in technology, to build bigger defences and to put the environment on the backburner – and in some instances, we may have no choice if we are to defend some highly vulnerable communities. But as the default solution, that cannot be the way forward. If we do not work with nature to a much greater degree than in recent decades, we are doomed to failure in the battle against climate change.
To cope with climate change we have to allow natural processes within the environment to function and we need to resist the interference that has characterised so much of our approach over the last century. Collectively we have to ensure that the critical services that a healthy environment delivers are able to operate unimpeded.
For example, peatbogs are the most important store of carbon in the UK – storing more than all the forests of Germany and France combined. Saltmarsh protects hundreds of miles of the British coastline at no cost. The free flood control and storm buffering benefits provided by coastal habitats like saltmarsh and sand dunes have been estimated at over £1bn per year.
Together, land and the oceans absorb around half of all human-produced greenhouse gas emissions. Urban green spaces help cool surrounding built up areas by up to 4C and protecting upland rivers can increase the supply of fresh drinking water – vital given the likely decrease in rainfall. Conserving a healthy natural environment is therefore not only morally correct, it is cost-effective action preparing our nation for the impacts of global warming.
Viewed in this light we are remarkably ill-prepared for the challenges ahead. During the last half century we have, as a society, put in place some spectacularly high hurdles in the way of our ability to respond to environmental change.
Much of our coastline is "defended" by concrete structures that have no capacity to adapt to rising sea levels and in some cases make erosion worse; we have overgrazed and damaged many of our peatlands that play such a critical role in absorbing and storing greenhouse gases; we have exploited our farmland so that soils are damaged and fertility decreased. We have overfished our seas so that fish stocks may simply find the changing climate too much to bear, and crash permanently. On the land, development, pollution and intensive agriculture have forced species to retreat to isolated and fragmented habitats that leave no room for them to move when climate change starts to hit.
Protecting and working with nature makes economic sense, and can be done now. Continuing to rely on as yet undeveloped technologies as our safety net for climate change would be nothing short of a disaster.

We have the climate predictions but do we have the political will to adapt?

The climate predictions for the UK, published today by Defra, underline the extraordinary nature of the challenge to our communities.
Rising sea levels, changing rainfall patterns and increases in temperature, varying from locality to locality, all demand the implementation of adaptation measures to manage the increasing risk to our coastlines, cities, towns and villages, and the infrastructure serving them.
We are fortunate in having the best climate modelling capacity in the world here in the UK. Now the question is whether or not the British public and their councillors, planners, civil servants and politicians have the appetite to provide sufficient funding to devise and implement long-range schemes of adaptation across the 23 river basins, 16 administrative regions and eight coastal regions covered by the report.
Until the past 10 years, risk management against extreme events such as storms at sea, flash floods and hot dry summers, was framed in terms of the frequency of these events.
The Thames Barrier, for example, was designed to withstand a 1-in-2,000 year event, thus preventing London from flooding through surges up or down the river except in the most extreme cases.
But with a changing climate, this language has to be altered. What was a 1-in-2,000 year event in 1982, when the barrier first became operational, will now be a 1-in-1,000 year event later this century. The barrier will need to be retro-fitted to face our changing climate challenges.
Our changing climate has a built in inertia of about 30 years. The increase in greenhouse gases brought about largely by our use of fossil fuels and by deforestation over the past 50 years will continue to cause global warming over the coming decades, even if we were to terminate all emissions now.
But decisions to cut back on emissions now – globally, not just in the UK – will have a dramatic effect on impacts in the period beyond 2040. Here is the political challenge: to reduce the impacts for future generations we must de-fossilise our economies now. Have we, as a global civilisation, developed the capability and the appetite for joint action on a scale never previously achieved for the benefit not of ourselves but for future generations?
In 2005, on behalf of the UK government, I signed a memorandum of understanding with the Chinese government to enable members of our foresight flood and coastal defence team to work with Chinese engineers, scientists and economists on the flood risk to Shanghai and the Yangse basin area of China. The outcome, I believe, was a startling realisation for the Chinese that Shanghai, the jewel in the crown of China's economic miracle, was itself at risk of unmanageable levels of flooding before the end of the century, under a business-as-usual scenario for carbon emissions.
I believe that this may well have been a major factor in the clear change in the Chinese leadership's approach to the need for global action on emissions. Today, China is possibly the most progressive country in the world on taking action on climate change, including significant use of stimulus funds to green its development. The Chinese negotiating position for Copenhagen climate talks in December is now very critical of the laggards among the developed nations, particularly Japan and Canada.
This report is therefore very welcome as a further step towards managing risks for the UK from the global warming impacts that are already in the pipeline. But this is one step in the process. We need to have a full-scale review and refinancing of our adaptation procedures. And on the international scale, we will have to redouble our efforts if there is to be any useful outcome from the Copenhagen negotiations. In the face of the global economic downturn and, specifically, the further major downturn in the Japanese economy and the emerging dependence of the Canadian economy on extracting oil from tar sands, do we have the global political appetite for action on the scale required?
• Professor Sir David King is director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at the University of Oxford. He was chief scientific advisor to the UK government from 2000 to 2007.

Here is the weather for 2080: floods, droughts and heatwaves

And now for the weather. The 2020s are looking warm and dry, with occasional heavy winter showers. The 2050s should be sunny and warm, with scattered deaths due to heatwaves across London and the south-east. And looking ahead to the 2080s, temperatures could reach 41C, so be sure to pack the suncream for your picnic. And watch out for those great white sharks!
Scientists today issued the most detailed assessment yet of how global warming will unfold across Britain. In a range of possible scenarios published by the government, the experts painted a picture of a very different UK, with soaring summertime temperatures and dwindling rainfall.
//











insertAudioPlayer("300", "25", "http://static.guim.co.uk/static/75592/common/flash/guMiniPlayer.swf", "linktext=David Adam on climate change forecast for UK&publication_date=&file=http://download.guardian.co.uk/audio/kip/standalone/environment/1245401543291/3914/gdn.env.090619.tm.David-Adam.mp3&popupurl=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/audio/2009/jun/19/climate-change-forecast-uk?popup=true&popupheight=232&popupwidth=500&duration=169&audioid=349086895");

David Adam: 'It will tell you the climate in your garden in 2080' Link to this audio
Announcing the results, Hilary Benn, environment secretary, said global warming will affect "every aspect of our daily lives". The scientists say summer rainfall in south-east England could decrease by a fifth by the 2050s. Average mean temperatures are likely to rise by more than 2C across the UK by 2040s. If carbon emissions continue to rise, there is a 10% chance that temperatures in the southeast could rise by 8C or more by the 2080s.
The results are aimed at industries and organisations that need to make long-term investment decisions that could be influenced by a changing climate. They come as scientists urge politicians to focus on adapting to inevitable climate change as well as on efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Benn said: "There is no doubt about it, climate change is the biggest challenge facing the world today. It is already happening, the hottest ten years on record globally have all been since 1990. This landmark scientific evidence shows not only that we need to tackle the causes of climate change, but also that we must deal with the consequences."
The new predictions follow a similar exercise in 2002, that produced maps of likely changes across Britain for the 2020s, 2050s and 2080s. They showed the UK faced drier, warmer summers and wetter, milder winters. Experts say the new results are more powerful, because they present the relative probabilities of a range of possible outcomes. They also cover three different possible futures, in which carbon emissions are low, medium or high. Benn said the world was currently heading along the medium scenario, but that there was a risk that emissions could increase towards the high pathway.
Under the high emissions scenario, the results suggest the hottest summer days could be 12C warmer than today, with peak summer temperatures in London regularly topping 40C.
To produce the new predictions, the scientists at the Met Office Hadley Centre ran 300 versions of their sophisticated climate computer model, and pooled the results to see which outcomes were most likely. The results cannot be used to predict specific weather on future dates, but they indicate broad trends.
Andy Brown, climate change and environmental performance manager with Anglian Water, said the results would help the company plan key infrastructure such as reservoirs. "The increased resolution and probabilities will help to give us more focus." The breakdown into small regions, just 25km across, will help too. "Rainfall can be very localised so it will help us make plans to deal with events."
Paul Bettison, chair of the environment board at the Local Government Association: "We need to start encouraging people to plan for the future. Schools in other countries more used to blistering hot summers are built with large amounts of shade. Our teachers chase people out of shady classrooms to enjoy the sunshine."
Better projections of climate in the 2050s and even the 2080s can help local authorities to force developers to adapt their designs, he says. And existing regulations only insist on a minimum temperature inside buildings such as schools, that is likely to change to include maximum temperature too. "When the original act was written in the 1960s nobody had heard of climate change," he said. "Simply building in dirty great air conditioning units is not the answer."
Paul Williams, a climate scientist at the University of Reading, said: "Sceptics will no doubt question how scientists can confidently predict the climate of 2080, when we cannot even forecast next week's weather with any skill. But climate prediction and weather forecasting are completely different problems. We can say with confidence that July is always warmer than January, because more sunlight is received. Similarly, we can say with confidence that the 2080s will be warmer than the 2000s, because of the extra heat trapped by greenhouse gases."
The Department of Energy and Climate Change said the publication of the new climate predictions marked the first step towards a "five point plan" to tackle climate change. Later this month, Ed Miliband, energy and climate secretary, will publish the government's blueprint for a new global climate deal, which it hopes will be agreed at key UN talks in Copenhagen in December. Next month, ministers will publish a new national strategy for climate and energy, to set out policies to meet the government's domestic carbon reduction targets.
The climate predictions were welcomed by the University of Oxford's Sir David King, the former chief scientific advisor. "Now the question is whether or not the British public and their councillors, planners, civil servants and politicians have the appetite to provide sufficient funding to implement long-range schemes of adaptation across the regions covered by the report."
Green campaigners called for stronger action on emissions to avoid the damaging impacts the UK will face .
Andy Atkins, Friends of the Earth executive director, said: "This valuable new research highlights the damaging impact that climate change will have around the UK . The UK government must show real leadership by example ahead of crucial climate negotiations in Copenhagen."
Chris Smith, chairman of the Environment Agency said: "These new projections remind us starkly of the choices we face in ensuring a sustainable future for our fragile planet. A failure to cut greenhouse gas emissions will lead to a battle for survival for mankind and many other species across the globe by the end of this century."

New York 'carbon counter' sign shows greenhouse gases in real timeBuzz up!

New Yorkers leaving Penn station and the tenor Andrea Bocelli's concert at Madison Square Garden stadium were confronted with an unusual advert yesterday – a huge sign showing greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere.
Updated in real time, using projections from monthly measurements of CO2 and other greenhouse gases by Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Carbon Counter is designed to get everyone to reduce their emissions.
Kevin Parker, the global head of Deutsche Bank's asset management division, which put up the 21-metre sign, said: "Carbon in the atmosphere has reached an 800,000-year high. We can't see greenhouse gases, so it is easy to forget that they are accumulating rapidly."
Yesterday the counter, which uses 40,960 low-energy LEDs and carbon-offsets its electricity usage, gave a figure of 3.64tn tonnes.
At current rates, the counter's figures are expected to rise by 2bn tonnes a month. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere stands at about 387 parts per million (ppm), up by more than a third on pre-industrial revolution levels of about 280ppm.
Ronald Prinn, professor of atmospheric science at MIT, explained the data behind the sign: "The number on the counter is based on global measurements. It shows the total estimated tonnage of greenhouse gases expressed as their equivalent amounts of carbon dioxide, with seasonal and other natural cyclical variations removed to more clearly reveal the underlying long-term trends driven by human and other activity."

Europe to hunt more whales than Japan, figures show

Europe plans to hunt more whales than Japan for the first time in many years, dividing EU countries and dismaying conservationists who say that whaling is escalating in response to the worldwide recession.
Figures seen by the Guardian before a meeting of more than 80 countries next week, show that Norway, Denmark and Iceland propose to hunt 1,478 whales compared to Japan's 1,280 in 2009. This would be an increase of nearly 20% by Europe on last year.
"Europe likes to point the finger at Japan as a rogue whaling nation but Europeans are killing whales in increasing numbers in their own waters. Europe has become whale enemy number one", said Kate O'Connell, campaigner for the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS).
Iceland – which today began its 2009 hunt by killing the first two of 150 fin whales – and Norway, are the only two countries to hunt whales commercially. This breaches a 23-year-old worldwide moratorium introduced to preserve critically endangered whale populations.
This year, Norway proposes to kill 885 minke whales, and Iceland 350 whales in total. Denmark will apply to hunt 245 on behalf of indigenous Inuit hunters in its semi-autonomous territory Greenland. Most of the whale meat caught in European waters will be sold to Japan.
Japan, which practises thinly disguised commercial whaling under the guise of scientific research, plans to kill 850 whales in Antarctic waters this season, as well as more than 400 in the Pacific. It wants to kill fewer whales than last year but is seeking permission to hunt more in its coastal waters.
Britain today increased diplomatic pressure on Iceland to stop its whaling, warning that it intended to make it a condition of the country's expected application to join the EU that it abandon commercial whaling. Fisheries minister Huw Irranca-Davies said: "If Iceland were to join Europe then Britain would expect they would be obliged to end their whaling operation. We would urge renegotiation."
A spokesman for the new Iceland government said: "The government has said it will honour this year's quota but will reassess the whaling situation by the end of the year. A study is being done by the economic institute of the University of Iceland. Whaling will obviously be part of the talks when Iceland negotiates its entry to the EU."
An independent economic report commissioned by conservation groups WWF and WDCS released today in advance of the International whaling commission (IWC) summit in Madeira, concludes that whaling is no longer economically viable.
Japan, it claimed, has spent $164m (£100m) backing its whaling industry since 1988, and Norwegian subsidies equal almost half of the gross value of all whale-meat landings. Sales of whale meat, blubber, and other whale products in Japan "have made financial losses for most of the last 20 years", it said.
The research says that killing more whales will only hurt the growing whale-watching industry, and damage the international image of Norway and Japan. "Norway and Japan are hurting tourism, a potential growth industry in both countries in order to spend millions of dollars obtaining whale meat, the sale of which makes no profit. How much longer are they going to keep wasting their taxpayer's money?" said a spokeswoman for WWF.
Earlier this year more than 115,000 people pledged to visit Iceland as soon as the government announced an end to whaling.
The number of pro- and anti-whaling countries are finely balanced within the IWC, with both sides continuing to recruit as many countries as possible to boost their positions. Japan in the past has offered many small countries development aid to vote with them, but Britain and other countries have also leaned on eastern European countries to join.
Australia and New Zealand said this week that they would mount a non-lethal whale research expedition to the Antarctic, as a direct challenge to Japan's research programme, which maintains it must kill whales to study them. The six-week expedition aims to prove that whales needn't be killed for study, the two governments said in a joint statement.
The IWC meeting is being held amidst are fears that environment groups are stepping up campaigns to stop whaling. A previously unknown Norwegian group called Agenda 21 attacked a whaling ship in April, bringing to six the number of whaling boats sabotaged in Norway.
Sea Shepherd, a radical California-based group which has admitted sabotaging whalers in Iceland and elsewhere, has also threatened to return to Europe.
Today , the Icelandic whaling ship Hvalur 9 returned to the Hvalfjord whaling station to process its first catch.
FLASHPOINTS
GREENLAND: The semi-autonomous Danish territory wants to hunt 50 endangered fin whales for indigenous consumption, but most of the meat will be sold to Japan
RUSSIA: Oil companies on the Sakhalin peninsular in the far east of Russia threaten feeding grounds of critically endangered whales
NORWAY: The Lofoten islands are the centre of Norwegian whaling, but also target of anti-whaling groups
ANTARCTICA: The entire sea around Antarctica has been declared a whale sanctuary but Japan regularly hunts whales there
ICELAND: Government may be forced to stop whaling if it wants to joins EU

Protecting Your Job While Coping With a Chronic Illness

IT started with an odd sensation in her right hand and a feeling of exhaustion so profound she could hardly get through an hoAfter numerous tests and countless doctors’ visits, Natasha Frechette, then 27, learned she had multiple sclerosis, a disease that attacks the central nervous system and can cause numbness, blindness and eventual paralysis.
In addition to grappling with the diagnosis, Ms. Frechette was concerned about keeping her job as a data manager for a small research organization in Brooklyn Park, Minn. “I didn’t want to have to depend on someone to take care of me,” she said. "But I know that I could wake up tomorrow and not be able to walk."
Workers with chronic illnesses face chronic uncertainty, forced to worry not only about their health but about their jobs as well. The protections afforded chronically ill workers in the United States are thin and somewhat vague. To protect their health and their jobs, workers must navigate employers’ policies, which may include short- and long-term disability plans, as well as a patchwork of federal laws and regulations.
A recent study by the Center for Economics and Policy Research, a Washington research organization, found that among 22 rich nations, the United States was the only one that did not guarantee workers paid time off for illness.
Most other countries provide their workers not only with paid sick days, but also time off for cancer treatments, the study found. German citizens, for example, are allowed five sick days and 44 days for cancer treatment, if needed, in addition to vacation days.
Most employers in the United States allow employees to take days off for minor ailments, like the flu or outpatient operations, without docking their pay. And 41 percent offer employees days off — nine, on average — for illness or other reasons, in addition to vacation days, according to a 2007 survey by Mercer, a benefits consulting business based in New York.
But when an employee has a serious or chronic illness, like diabetes, major depression or lupus, the rules about time off become murky.
Two laws offer workers some relief. The Family and Medical Leave Act allows employees to take up to 12 weeks off each year for medical or family emergencies — but without pay. And the Americans With Disabilities Act requires employers to make reasonable adjustments for disabled workers, often in the form of additional time off.
Ms. Frechette explained her condition to her supervisor and said she would need time off for physical and occupational therapy. Her boss readily agreed, and Ms. Frechette, who plans to marry this fall, continues to work full time.
“I’m careful,” she said. "I don’t want my disease to be seen as a cop-out.”
If you are dealing with an chronic illness, here are some strategies to help you maintain your job.
INFORM YOUR EMPLOYER If you have a condition that could interfere with your performance, tell your boss. “People are often afraid of being discriminated against,” said Rosalind Joffe, a career coach who counsels people with chronic illnesses. “I had one client who didn’t disclose his illness to anyone. His odd behavior led his boss to conclude he was a drug abuser.”
Be honest. Explain what your condition is and how it might affect your work. “Don’t be ashamed,” Ms. Frechette said.
A supervisor who understands what is wrong is less likely to make false assumptions about what you can and cannot do. “Be clear about your value and what you can deliver,” Ms. Joffe said. “If you’re a valued employee, your boss will work with you.”
If you feel you are being unfairly treated, speak with your supervisor. If that doesn’t work, go to the human resources department.
ASK FOR ADJUSTMENTS If your illness meets the definition of a disability, your employer is required to make reasonable accommodations to your job or work environment, according to the Americans With Disabilities Act.
What is a disability? “It’s a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities,” said Chris Kuczynski, director of the division that deals with the disability act at the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Although your illness may be episodic or controlled by medications, it is still a disability, according to a recent amendment to the law.
Your employer does not have to provide an accommodation if it would impose significant difficulty or expense. Asking for a car and driver to take you to and from work would probably not be reasonable, Mr. Kuczynski said. But taking time off for chemotherapy treatments certainly would.
According to the Society for Human Resource Managers, the top five accommodations for the disability act provided by employers in 2005 (the last year for which data are available) were parking or transportation modifications, making existing facilities accessible, offering new equipment to workers, restructuring jobs and modifying the work environment.
If you are not sure what type of accommodations you are entitled to or how to ask for them, contact the Job Accommodation Network (800-526-7234), a service provided by the federal Department of Labor. In general, the network recommends that you put your request to your employer in writing. If you work in a small, informal setting, that may not be necessary.
KNOW THE TIME-OFF POLICIES You can learn about the on-the-books rules by going to your company’s intranet or speaking with its human resources department.
If you need to take a few weeks or months off for an operation, for example, or chemotherapy, research your company’s short- and long-term disability plans. Disability policies typically allow you to take a specific time off at reduced pay. According to Mercer, the consulting firm, 78 percent of employers offer short-term plans and 80 percent offer long-term disability plans.
You can also tap into your 12 weeks of family and medical leave at any time. You may take the time intermittently or all at once. You will not be paid, but your job will be secure.
EXPLORE ALTERNATIVES If the hours are too long or the work is too taxing to handle while you are ill, find out whether you could work part time or could even take a different job in your company.
If neither is feasible, explore new career possibilities. One of Ms. Joffe’s clients was a high-powered lawyer who had a serious heart condition. To reduce stress, he decided to give up litigation and become a teacher.
If you are worried about your finances or health insurance, be sure to check with the advocacy organization focused on your disease. The American Cancer Society, for instance, has a call center (800-227-2345) that helps people who don’t have health insurance or are on the verge of losing it.
If your illness finally prohibits you from working altogether, you may apply for Social Security disability insurance. The process is lengthy, and you must be able to prove that you cannot work at any job. The amount you are paid is based on your lifetime earnings — you can find the number on the annual statement you receive from the Social Security Administration.
Generally, payments are modest: the average in 2008 was $1,063 a month. But once you have received disability payments for two years, you automatically qualify for Medicare coverage. ur of work, let alone a full day.

Destroying Levees in Louisiana

In the 1960s, a group of businessmen bought 16,000 acres of swampy bottomland along the Ouachita River in northern Louisiana and built miles of levee around it. They bulldozed its oak and cypress trees and, when the land dried out, turned it into a soybean farm.Now two brothers who grew up nearby are undoing all that work. In what experts are calling the biggest levee-busting operation ever in North America, the brothers plan to return the muddy river to its ancient floodplain, coaxing back plants and animals that flourished there when President Thomas Jefferson first had the land surveyed in 1804.
The idea goes against the grain in Louisiana, where people have battled river flooding since colonial days. European settlers were often required to build levees to establish homesteading claims; in recent decades, landowners built levees to create farmland by the hundreds of thousands of acres. Hurricane Katrina brought a clamor for more and stronger levees to protect people and buildings farther south

Yet at the same time, there is a growing awareness that Louisiana’s levees have exacted a huge environmental cost. Inland, cypress forests and wetlands crucial for migrating waterfowl have vanished; in southern Louisiana, coastal marshes deprived of regular infusions of sediment-rich river water have yielded by the mile to an encroaching Gulf of Mexico. Some scientists have suggested opening levees south of New Orleans so the Mississippi River can flow normally into the swamps

Giant Carbon Clock Unveiled in Center of New York City

Deutsche Bank has erected a seven-story sign in the heart of New York City that ticks off the tons of carbon dioxide being emitted into the atmosphere — a public relations move designed to raise awareness of global warming.Designed by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and hanging outside Madison Square Garden, the giant counter shows that the amount of carbon dioxide in earth’s atmosphere is at 3.64 trillion metric tons, the highest level in 800,000 years. Number whirring on the counter show that CO2 is being added to the atmosphere at the rate of 800 tons per second.

Nissan to make electric cars in U.S

Nissan Motor Co plans to launch production of electric vehicles and their batteries in the United States to tap low-interest loans for green vehicles, the Nikkei business daily said.
The overall investment is estimated at 50 billion yen ($516.4 million) and may rise to 100 billion yen, it said.
Under the plan, the new electric-car assembly lines are to be built at a plant in Smyrna, Tennessee, where Nissan North America Inc is based, the paper said.

The Choice: Doomsday or Arbor Day

Environmental issues effect every life on this planet from the smallest parasite to the human race. The reason for this is simple. A single disruption in the Earth?s delicate balance can mean certain destruction of the very place that cradles the lives of many species. What is not so simple is finding alternatives to the now dangerous and confronting acts of planet degradation that have been afflicted on the planet over recent years. One such issue that requires consideration is deforestation. Trees have been or are being cut down at increasingly high rates. If this is not stopped many unfavorable side effects could result.
Why Trees Matter
To understand why deforestation is such a pressing and urgent issue, forests must first be given credit for what they bring to global ecosystems and the quality of life that all species maintain. Tropical Rainforests presently give a place to call home for 50% - 90% of all organisms, 90% of our relatives, the primates, and 50 million creatures that can live no place but the rich rainforests (World Rainforest Movement 16). Not only are other species at risk, but the human race also benefits from what the trees give. From something as minor as the spices that indulge food to life giving medicines, the rainforests amplify and save lives. According to the World Rainforest Movement, 25% of medicines come from the forests (28). This is a number that does not do justice to all the cures that have yet to be discovered or that have been destroyed. The forests give life, not only to other species, but they help to prolong the human race. The forests have global implications not just on life but on the quality of it. Trees improve the quality of the air that species breath by trapping carbon and other particles produced by pollution. Trees determine rainfall and replenish the atmosphere. As more water gets put back in the atmosphere, clouds form and provide another way to block out the sun?s heat. Trees are what cool and regulates the earth?s climate in conjunction with other such valuable services as preventing erosion, landslides, and making the most infertile soil rich with life. Mother earth has given much responsibility to trees.
Population Growth an Deforestation
So this leads into a very confusing question of the 20th century. Why are these trees being torn down? The World Wide Forest Report found that when the Roman Empire was in control of Europe 90% of the continent was forested. Today 500,000 hectors vanish in a single week ("Logging is the Major Cause of Global Deforestation" 1). There is no one easy answer as there are many causes at the root of deforestation. One is overpopulation in cities and developing countries. Population is continually growing in the third world. Some had land until increases in population forced them off it and they became landless peasants that are forced to look for land in the untouched forests. This movement to the forests is in some ways a result of government pressures. In place of implementing programs to help the poor these governments concentrate on the cheapest, easiest, way to keep poverty out of sight and give the poor no other choice but to force other species out and themselves in. According to Norman Myers, bad land tenure, a shortage of modern agricultural tools, and government neglect of subsistence farmers have put an influx of human interference in the forests. (37) The poor are pushed in further and further and destroy more every time they must move on.
What the poor do in the forests is the most devastating. In attempts to settle farmland, the poor become "shifted cultivators" and resort to using slash and burn methods of tree removal. Slashing and burning involves what its name implies, trees are cut down and the remains are burned. The ash is used as a fertilizer and the land is then used for farming or cattle grazing, however, the soil that is cleared in slash and burn is left infertile, the nutrients in the soil are quickly absorbed by surrounding organisms ("Deforestation" 1). The farmers must move on sometimes to other areas and repeat this process and worthy land and trees become scarce. For farmers in places like Brazil, slash and burn methods are the only way to effectively clear land of parasites and unwanted organisms; chemical means contaminate water and soil and farmers continue to turn to slashing and burning ("Slash and Burn Agriculture" 1). It has become so much a dilemma that a leading researcher, Myers, sees it of all the causes of deforestation, to be the number one cause (Myers 32).

Logging and Deforestation
The small farmer plays a big role, but it is modern industry that too cuts down the trees. The logging industry is fueled by the need for disposable products. 11 million acres a year are cut for commercial and property industries (Entity Mission 1). Peter Heller found that McDonald?s needs 800 square miles of trees to make the amount of paper they need for a year?s supply of packaging, Entity Mission found that British Columbia manufactures 7, 500,000 pairs of chopsticks a day, and the demand for fuel wood is so high that predictions say that there will be a shortage by the year 2000. Logging does too have its repercussions. The logging industry not only tries to accomplish all this but it even indirectly helps the "shifted cultivators" and others to do more damage. The roads that the loggers build to access the forests and generate hydroelectric power create an easy way for many people to try to manipulate the forest resources. The amount of damage that this adds to the forests can not be measured nor can that of the illegal logging. Some importers may even be buying illegally logged wood and not even have known it ("Logging is the Major Cause of Global Deforestation ? New WWF Report" 2).
Cattle Grazing and Deforestation
Another of the more devastating forces behind deforestation is cattle grazing. With the international growth of fast food chains this seems to be an evident factor in the clearing of trees today. Large corporations looking to buy beef for hamburger and even pet food seek cheap prices and are finding them with the growth of cattle grazing (Heller 3). In the Amazon region of South America alone there are 100,000 beef ranchers (Heller 3). As the burger giants of industrialized society are making high demands for more beef, more forests are being torn down. Statistics from less than a decade ago, 1989, indicate that 15,000 km squared of forests are used expressly for the purpose of cattle grazing (Myers 32). Once the trees are gone the land is often overgrazed. In some places the government wants this to happen. Cattle grazing is big profit that can?t be turned down.
Other Causes
Beyond the major causes of deforestation lie some supplementary ones that too stack the odds against forests around the globe. Acid rain and the building of dams have their share of harmful effects. The race to produce cash crops such as fruit, spices, sugar tobacco, soap, rubber, paper, and cloth has given cause to many to try to farm them by using soil and other products that can be retrieved by destroying the forests. Even those in industrialized countries may participate in the destruction of forests in the 3rd world. The need for products in industrialized countries drives production in other poorer, less developed countries. This production is at the cost of the trees and the services that they provide.

The Effects
Deforestation presents multiple societal and environmental problems. The immediate and long-term consequences of global deforestation are almost certain to jeopardize life on Earth, as we know it. Some of these consequences include: loss of biodiversity; the destruction of forest-based-societies; and climatic disruption.
What is Lost
Deforestation is causing a loss of biological diversity on an unprecedented scale. Although tropical forests cover only six percent of Earth?s land surface, they happen to contain between 70% and 90% of all of the world?s species (Myers, 12). As a result of deforestation, we are losing between 50 and 100 animal and plant species each day (Myers 12). Inevitably, the loss of species entails a loss of genetic resources. Many of these species now facing the possibility of extinction are of enormous potential to humans in many areas; especially medicine. As of 1991, over 25% of the world?s pharmaceutical products were derived from tropical plants (Myers). By contributing to the extinction of multiple species of plants and animals, we might be destroying the cures for many of the diseases that plague the human race today.
The world?s forests, particularly tropical rainforests, are home to over 10 million members of the "last surviving intimately resource-based cultures" (GFF 3). Given the importance of forest products to the daily lives of forest peoples, the destruction of tropical forests entails the destruction of tribal populations as a whole. Aboriginal people world-wide have had their land literally stolen from them by governments and industries, whose intent is to turn "natural capital into hard currency" (Dudley 11). As the Global Futures Foundation states, "there have been more extinctions of tribal peoples in this century than any other?Even in the rare cases when forest dwellers are compensated for this loss, the changes visited upon their cultures by the inexorable expansion of industrial culture are devastating." Without a doubt, deforestation has had a profound effect on cultural diversity throughout the forest regions, and ultimately, the world.
Erosion
The lushness of the world?s tropical forests is somewhat deceptive. Although these forests assume to be lush and full, the underlying soils are very poor, almost all the nutrients being bound up in the vegetation. The problem is that once forests have been cut down, essential nutrients are washed out of the soil all-together. This leads to soil erosion. As of now, about 80% of the soils in the humid tropics are acidic and infertile (Dudley 21). When there are no trees to keep the soil in place, the soil becomes ripe for erosion. It dries and cracks under the sun?s heat. Once the soil temperature exceeds 25 degrees centigrade, volatile nutrient ingredients like nitrogen can be lost, further reducing the fertility of the remaining soil (Myers 14). Furthermore, rainfall washes remaining nutrients into rivers. This means that replanting trees will not necessarily help to solve the problems of deforestation; by the time the trees have matured, the soil might be completely stripped of essential nutrients. Eventually, cultivation in the forest regions will be impossible, and the land will be useless. The soil erosion will lead to permanent impoverishment of huge land areas.
The social impact of soil erosion can be quite severe. Those who settle into the forest regions are forced to move every year or so due to soil erosion. They find areas where they can cultivate. When those areas are no longer good for growing, they move to another region.

Flooding
Flooding is a quite serious consequence of deforestation. Clearing the forest dramatically increases the surface run-off from rainfall, mainly because a greater proportion of the rain reaches the ground due to a lack of vegetation which would suck up the excess rainfall. "Tropical forests can receive as much rain in an hour as London would expect in a wet month, and a single storm has been measured as removing 185 tonnes of topsoil per hectare" (Dudley 21). In tropical regions where the forests are dense, flooding is not as serious a problem because there is vegetation to absorb the rainfall. It is in areas where there is little vegetation that there is a problem. Hence, to avoid the disastrous effects of flooding, tropical forests need to remain dense and lush.
Climate Change
Although all consequences of deforestation are potentially serious, perhaps the most serious consequence is that of climate change due to the loss of trees. Earth has an atmosphere which contains a variety of gases, all in a delicate balance, to ensure life on Earth. One of these gases in Earth?s atmosphere is carbon dioxide; a gas which helps moderate heat loss to outer space. Insulating gases such as carbon dioxide are called "greenhouse gasses because their function is much like that of the glass in a greenhouse: they allow solar heat into the system, but discourage its escape" (GFF 3). Other greenhouse gases include methane, chlorofluorocarbons, nitrous oxide, and ozone. If there are additional greenhouse gases, there will be a gradual increase in temperature on Earth?s surface. This could lead to changes in weather patterns, sea levels, and other cycles in nature that directly affect life on Earth (GFF 3). The process of greenhouse gas increase is quite simple. Carbon dioxide levels increase for a number of reasons; but one of the main factors contributing to the increase of carbon levels is decay of woody material. The only way to help moderate the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is through plant life. Alive plants and trees absorb the carbon dioxide from decaying plants and trees. With a decrease in trees and plant life (due to deforestation) it is much harder to moderate these levels. Ultimately, the amount of carbon will increase due to a lack of plant life present to keep the carbon dioxide levels in check. This whole process leads to an "albedo effect which reflects more heat and light back into the atmosphere than would be the case if the sun shone on green trees?" (Dudley 23). The bottom line is that the increase in the carbon level and other greenhouse gas levels into the atmosphere leads to an increase in temperature, and eventually a change in climate

Discussion
We as human beings may not understand the severity of the possible consequences that deforestation poses. Since deforestation has had no severe effect on us yet, we ignore the problem. Everywhere you go, you see pieces of paper on the ground, people using multiple tissues to wipe their noses, and countless people pulling excessive amounts of brown paper out of the paper towel dispensers in lavatories. These are just few of the sources of paper that we use each day, without any thought whatsoever.
What we must realize is that the paper products we use daily could have been a part of a forest which functioned to enrich and hold soil, absorb carbon dioxide, collect and recycle water, release oxygen, and regulate climate. Some companies do plant trees to produce the kinds of the products needed by industry to spare the older forests but many do not. By wasting paper products, we are wasting forests. The simple fact is that the more paper we use, the more forests need to be cut down to serve our paper needs.
Many people might not consider the possible consequences of deforestation serious. They might say, "What if: a few people lose their homes; we experience a little flooding here and there; the temperature rises a little bit; we miss out on a few new medicines; we kill off a few species which we never knew existed in the first place; the soil loses its nutrients." Ignorant people like these do not realize the severity of these consequences.
By destroying people?s homes, we are cheating ourselves out of having a more diverse world. Flooding will cause billions upon billions of dollars in repairs; and those repairs will most likely be done by the good old U.S., with our tax dollars. If the temperature rises a bit, this will throw mother nature totally off course. It will affect farming, the tourism industry, travel, sea levels, and much more. If what Myers found is correct and 25% of medicines come form the rain forests, then there is a big change that with modern technologies that many more could be found. Without knowing what is being destroyed, we might not be missing out on just a few new medicines. We might be killing our chances of finding the cures for diseases such as Cancer, Aids, Multiple Sclerosis, or a multitude of others. And if by chance we lose all of the nutrients in the soil because of soil erosion, cultivation will be next to impossible. After thinking about these consequences, try convincing anyone that the ramifications of deforestation will not prove to be quite disastrous.
Forests were put on Earth for a reason; they help to maintain a delicate balance between all of nature?s elements. By destroying forests through ranching, logging, farming, industrial practice, etc., we are putting this delicate balance in jeopardy.
There is no cure for deforestation. Sure, many people talk of reforestation; however that is just not a true solution. Although replanting the forests that have been destroyed seems like a good idea, it actually does no good. Often times the new trees are not the same species as the originals. Also, by the time the trees grow and mature, the soil has already lost much of the nutrients it once had. Old forests and new forests are not the same and it is the old forest that need to be protected.
The only way to ensure that we will not encounter any of the consequences of deforestation is to stop destroying the forests all together. We would have to stop cutting down all trees, no matter what our needs were. Since this is totally impractical as of now, the only thing we can do is use forest products in moderation. However this idea of moderation needs to be put into practice immediately. We as people should take care of this problem before it gets to the point where we can no longer fix it. Instead of putting the problem on the back burner until we can no longer ignore it, how about we remedy it now so it never threatens us to begin with. The sad fact is that once the forests are gone, we won?t be able to fix the damage which we have caused.
Conclusion
So where can we go from here? There is no one easy solution as deforestation is caused by many things. One option is decreasing the need for the amount of products that are harvested from the rainforests. If all countries, especially developed ones, enforced programs that used recycling, the need for disposable products would be diminished and the loggers would not have a business. If the demand is cut off, there is no need for the supply. Other solutions involve money. One that could help to alleviate deforestation is providing aide to foreign countries so they give homes to those who are at high risk of becoming "shifted cultivators". The trick is convincing tax payers to reach into their pockets. Another would be to appeal to the American public to settle for higher prices on the cash crops that are imported to this country for cheap prices especially that burger at the local fast food joint. If Americans are willing to pay more, corperations such as those in the fast food industry can stop petitioning other countries to farm the rainforests for the manufacture of the materials they need to make their products.
The immediate effects of deforestation may not yet be felt, but if this generation doesn?t feel it the next generation and their children will be the ones to suffer. It is the actions of the human race that can make or break the future of the planet. In the end everyone loses unless a solution can be reached. This is easier said than done but the choices that lie ahead on this matter carry severe consequences that will forever change they way that all things live if they are able to live at all.
Terms to Know
Aboriginal People ? People who were the original inhabitants of the land. Atmosphere ? The outer layer of gases that surround a planet. Biodiversity ? The variation in life forms that exists on the planet. Developing/3rd World Nations ? Countries that do not have the economic resources that other, more economically powerful nations possess. Ecosystems ? Collection of life forms, the way they live and interact with each other. Erosion ? Land that becomes barren of nutrients and the soil literally "erodes" and is swept away by the elements. Evapotranspiration ? Water is removed from the environment by transpiration and evaporation, transpiration being the taking in of water by leaves on trees. Global Warming ? The temperature increase in the earth?s climate that is caused by an increased number of gases such as methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide that retain heat in the earth?s atmosphere. Greenhouse Gasses ? Gasses that trap heat and hold it in the Earth?s atmosphere, helping to contribute to global warming. Industrialized Countries ? Powerful countries that have economic and technological resources that other countries do not have. Shifted Cultivators ? People forced off their land who resort to making homes and farms in the tropical forests.
Jocelyn Stock Andy Rochen

Deforestation causes global warming

Most people assume that global warming is caused by burning oil and gas. But in fact between 25 and 30 percent of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere each year – 1.6 billion tonnes – is caused by deforestation. About 200 experts, mostly from developing countries, met in Rome last week to address this issue in a workshop organized by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and hosted by FAO. “We are working to solve two of the key environmental issues – deforestation and global warming – at the same time,” said FAO Senior Forestry Officer Dieter Schoene.Trees are 50 percent carbon. When they are felled or burned, the C02 they store escapes back into the air. According to FAO figures, some 13 million ha of forests worldwide are lost every year, almost entirely in the tropics. Deforestation remains high in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia.Readiness to actDelegates of the 46 developing countries present at the Rome workshop signalled their readiness to act on deforestation, 80 percent of which is due to increased farmland to feed growing populations. Part of the solution is to increase agricultural productivity so that there is less demand to convert forests into farmland.But they also stressed that they needed financial help from the developed world to do the job. A major flow of capital from north to south – under new instruments still waiting to be negotiated -- would be required to help the developing nations conserve their forests. Such incentives could come in the form of carbon credits as further action under the Kyoto Protocol, which governs greenhouse gas emissions from industrial sources in developed countries. It could also come directly under the Climate Change Framework Convention, or from bilateral agreements between donors and developing countries on country-wide forest conservation projects. Such questions are subject of ongoing international negotiations, which will continue later this year in Nairobi.The Rome workshop was supported by FAO and the Governments of Italy, Australia, Finland, the Netherlands and New Zealand.

Industry examines waste water management

The Textile Processors Association today held a training programme on ‘Wastewater Management in Textile Dyeing, Printing and Finishing industry’ today.
Speaking on the occasion, Krishan Kumar Sharma, president, Textile Processors Association said, “Being small in size, it is difficult for the industry to address environment issues. This problem is challenging and overburdening individual units. ” The aim of the programme, he said, is to train textile manufacturers about how they can control water consumption at source.
Dr Akepati S Reddy of Thapar Technology Campus noted that the industry is both water and energy intensive. He added that the options before the textile manufacturers are reduction of water consumption at source, re-cycling of water, re-use and treatment of polluted water and disposal. “Waste water management advocates a ‘cradle to grave’ approach, for ensuring cost effective and consistent compliance with the environmental requirements,” he added