DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW
2014-15

Environment Law
(FINAL PROJECT)

TITLE OF THE PROJECT

Environment protection, sustainable development and new

challenges.

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Mr. Dr. A.K. Tiwari and Mr. Amandeep Singh Aviral Umrao
Asstt. Prof. in Law Roll No. – 31
Introduction:

Today the world faces new challenges. The modern world development results in a depletion of
the natural resources, an increase of negative environmental impact, a deterioration of the
biosphere balance. The consequences of the climate change have become perceptible everywhere
in the world. It results in a worsening of social problems and sidelines further development. That
is why the need to provide sustainable development is urgent. The core of this idea is the necessity
to fit our constantly growing demands in the planet's natural capacity. The idea is not new; it will
soon complete 20 years of official life in the world. Few political slogans have lived for so long.
Yet its essence will never become outdated. It establishes the rules of the game and is a condition
of survival. Meanwhile, lessons are becoming increasingly harder, and their consequences are
increasingly expensive.

Sustainable development - as a well defined concept - has emerged from a series of Conferences
and Summits, where influential people have tried to come to an agreement on how to tackle the
“burning issues” of the 21st Century: poverty, increasing inequality, environmental and human
health degradation.

The 1972 Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, Sweden, attended by 113 states
and representatives from 19 international organizations, was the first truly international conference
devoted exclusively to environmental issues. There, a group of 27 experts articulated the links
between environment and development stating that: “although in individual instances there were
conflicts between environmental and economic priorities, they were intrinsically two sides of the
same coin” (Vogler, 2007, p. 432). Another result of the Stockholm Conference was the creation
of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) which has the mission “to provide
leadership and encourage partnership in caring for the environment by inspiring, informing, and
enabling nations and peoples to improve their quality of life without compromising that of future
generations1

The role of the Courts in India

India’s apex court, the Supreme Court, has been playing an important role as a steward of
environmental protection. In a recent order, it required the central government to set up a national

1
http://steconomiceuoradea.ro/anale/volume/2008/v2-economy-and-business-administration/101.pdf
environment regulator with offices in every state by March 31, 2014, entrusted with appraising
and approving projects for environmental clearances. In fact, Indian democracy is known not only
for its judicial independence, but, importantly, for offering numerous instances of judicial activism
that has been facilitated by the “innovative” tool of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) – a judicial pill
for relief against executive wrongs.

PIL originated in 1979 when the judicial ruling in the Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar case
led to the release of more than 40,000 under trial prisoners in the Indian state of Bihar. In a
subsequent judgment (S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981), Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R.
Krishna Iyer articulated the concept of PIL, stating that any member of public can file a petition
in the High Court against a violation of the legal or constitutional right(s) of any person or class
of persons who are helpless in approaching the court for relief, and can directly approach the
Supreme Court in case the latter’s fundamental right has been breached. In thePeople’s Union for
Democratic Rights v. Union of India case, 1982, Justice Bhagwati clarified the purpose of
PIL, stating that it is “a strategic arm of the legal aid movement which is intended to bring justice
within the reach of the poor masses, who constitute the low visibility area of humanity..[PIL] is a
totally different kind of litigation from the ordinary traditional litigation.” Over the years, PIL has
increased Indian judicial engagement with environmental issues tremendously, although some
judiciary experts consider this phenomenon a dilution of the original purpose of PIL.

Nevertheless, judicial activism has been instrumental in addressing the environmental cause. It
was because of the Supreme Court that the right to life and liberty, a fundamental right under
Article 21, came to include the right to a healthy environment. As a result, an individual can
approach it directly when the public interest is at stake due to environmental harm. Acting on a
PIL to curb industrial pollution of water bodies, for instance, the Court issued notices to the Union
government, Central Pollution Control Board, and 19 states to implement pollution control norms
and the “polluter pays” principle.

On past occasions as well, the Court has issued notices and directives to the central and state
governments on multiple environmental issues, such as freezing production licenses granted to
manufacturers of endosulfan pesticide, relocating hazardous industries from the National Capital
Region, issuing guidelines for the prevention of noise pollution, and requiring civic bodies to file
affidavits detailing measures to manage plastic waste. A well-known, controversial and rather stern
order came in 1998 (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India), when the Supreme Court mandated the
conversion of all diesel-powered buses in Delhi to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)-driven ones,
to check air pollution. It also imposed hefty fines on diesel bus operators who failed to comply
with the ruling. As a result, as of June 2012, some 13,000 buses were running on CNG in Delhi.
Similarly, hearing a petition in 2012, the Court admonished both the central government and the
state governments of Delhi, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh for persistent pollution of the Yamuna
river. The benchstated: “It is important for this court to take this matter to its logical conclusion
and not permit state authorities and its officers to leave it mid-way particularly when thousands of
crores [nearly $2 billion on sewage plants to treat effluents] have been spent by the union of India
and other public bodies.” Importantly, the empathy of the Court for the common man is reflected
in the following statement: “It’s common man’s money that has been spent and nothing has
happened.” As such, among other directives, it asked the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) to
employ its expertise in cleaning up the river.

Taking on the “mining mafia” has been another concern of the Supreme Court. Quite recently, it
asked the central government to submit by January 27 the Justice Shah Commission report on
illegal mining in the states of Odisha and Jharkhand. The report is expected to reveal the illegal
financial transactions and expose the culprits. Last year, the Court permitted 118 legal mines in
the state of Karnataka to reopen, lifting a two-year ban. However, it cancelled the leases of mining
projects planned outside the sanctioned area of the Bellary district.

It merits a caveat that the Supreme Court’s intervention is not a panacea for all environmental ills.
Further, its activism has been construed by legal experts as an encroachment on the executive
domain of policymaking. Also, dealing with environmental challenges requires administrative and
police accountability, “grassroots level governance,” public enlightenment and civic sense, and
corporate responsibility. Nevertheless, the role of the judiciary is pivotal to environmental
protection. In China, for instance, environmental protesters complain of an absence of the rule of
law and demand a judicial role in handling environmental cases. According to China Dialogue, for
example, during the 11th Five-Year Plan period (2006-2010), the Chinese Ministry of
Environmental Protection received more than 300,000 environmental complaints, but “less than
1% of environmental disputes are resolved through legal channels.” In India, by contrast, the public
and judiciary lie on the one side of the spectrum and the politico-bureaucratic authorities are on
the other when judicial redress is sought against authorities’ acts of omission and commission. In
fact, the mechanism of PIL has helped elevate the common man in India to the unofficial status of
a powerful individual who can fall back on the apex court and the state high courts to flog
bureaucracy into action that is in the public interest.

In its efforts to protect the environment, the Supreme Court and the Indian Judiciary in general
have relied on the public trust doctrine, precautionary principle, polluter pays principle the doctrine
of strict and absolute liability, the exemplary damages principle, the pollution fine principle and
inter-generational equity principle apart from the existing law of the land. Another guiding
principle has been that of adopting a model of sustainable development. The consistent position
adopted by the courts as enunciated in one of its judgments has been that there can neither be
development at the cost of the environment or environment at the cost of development.

Thus, the Supreme Court recognizes the need for development and proper utilization of our natural
resources for the betterment of our society. However, this cannot be done at the expense of the
environment itself.

The courts in India have, thus, played a dynamic role in preserving the environment and eco-
system. In a series of cases, the superior courts of India issued various directions and orders to
prevent the environmental degradation. To understand the role of the courts in this regard, the
structure of the judicial system and also the constitutional and statutory provisions are to be taken
note of.

It is true that there were various laws even in the nineteenth century to prevent vandalism of human
beings. The Indian Penal Code which came into existence in 1860 imposes fine on a person who
voluntarily fouls the water of any public spring or reservoir. The Code penalizes acts with
poisonous substances that endanger life or cause injury and proscribes public nuisance. The Indian
Easements Act 1882 protected the riparian owners against unreasonable pollution by upstream
uses. The Indian Fisheries Act passed in 1897 penalises the killing of fish by poisoning water and
by using explosives.
Thereafter series of enactments were passed to protect the purity of air and water and degradation
of forests. But the provision contained in these enactments were not seriously being implemented
by the authorities.

In December, 1984, India witnessed one of the greatest man-made calamities in Bhopal, the capital
city of the State of Madhya Pradesh, from a factory owned by Union Carbide India Limited. Methyl
Isocyanate, a highly poisonous gas leaked out and it resulted in the death of more than two
thousand persons who were mostly the hutment-dwellers in the near vicinity of the factory. The
air carried the leaked deadly poisonous gas to the thickly populated areas and about two lakhs
people suffered various bodily injuries. The Union Carbide India Limited is a company
incorporated in India by Americans. The Bhopal Gas Tragedy was an eye opener and the protection
of environment was taken as a serious matter. The Indian Parliament passed the Environment
Protection Act, 1986. The Environment Protection Act empowers the Central Government to take
measures to protect and improve the environment. Rules were also framed for implementation of
the provisions of the Act. The various provisions of this Act give power to the Central Government
to take measures to protect and improve the environment and they include:

 Power to take all measures necessary for purpose of protecting and improving the quality of
environment and preventing, controlling and abating environmental pollution,

 Coordination of actions of state governments, officers and other authorities under any law,

 Planning and executing of nationwide program for prevention, control and abatement of
environmental pollution,

 Laying down standards for quality of environment in its various aspects,

 Laying down emission standards from various sources,

 Restriction of areas in which any industry, operations etc. will not be carried out,

 Inspections of plants etc.,

 Constitution of authorities,

 Issue of directions,

 Lay down rules to regulate environmental pollution,

  Emissions to meet standards,

 Power of entry and inspection Power to take samples.

It may also be noticed that there are certain important constitutional provisions which give the
citizens the right to approach the High Courts as well as the Supreme Court of India to protect their
fundamental rights. Article 226 of the Constitution gives the right to citizens to approach the High
Court to enforce their fundamental rights. Article 226 of the Constitution gives the right to citizens
to approach the High Court to enforce their fundamental rights and the High Courts are given the
power to issue various writs. Article 32 of the Indian Constitution could be invoked by the citizens
for enforcement of rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution, namely, the Fundamental
Rights. It is also to be noted that Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees one of the important
fundamental right to the citizens and says that no person shall be deprived of his life “right to life”
contained in Article 21 has been given a very wide interpretation by the Supreme Court of India.
Article 48-A which is one of the Directive Principles of State Policy states that the State shall
endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the
country. Part IV – A was added to the Constitution by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act,
1976 and Article 51-A(g) thereof specifically says that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India
to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes rivers and wild life, and to
have compassion for living creatures.
Till 1980,not much contribution was made by the courts in preserving the environment. One of the
earliest cases which came to the Supreme Court of India was Municipal Council, Ratlam, vs
Vardhichand AIR 1980 SC 1622. Ratlam is a city in the State of Madhya Pradesh in India. Some
of the residents of the municipality filed a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate alleging
that the municipality is not constructing proper drains and there is stench and stink caused by the
excertion by nearby slum-dwellers and that there was nuisance to the petitioners. The Sub-
Divisional Magistrate directed the municipality to prepare a plan with six months to remove the
nuisance. The order passed by the SDM was approved by the High Court. The Municipality came
in appeal before the Supreme Court of India and contended that it did not have sufficient funds to
carry out the work directed by the SDM. The Supreme Court of India gave directions to the
Municipality to comply with the directions and said that paucity of funds shall not be a defence to
carry out the basic duties by the local authorities.
Thereafter, series of cases were filled before the Supreme Court and there was a dynamic change
in the whole approach of the courts in matters concerning environment.

The Supreme Court of India interpreted Article 21 which guarantees the fundamental right to life
and personal liberty, to include the right to a wholesome environment and held that a litigant may
assert his or her right to a healthy environment against the State by a writ petition to the Supreme
Court or a High Court. The powers of a High Court under Article 226 or those of the Supreme
Court under Article 32 are not confined to the prerogative writs derived from English law, but
extended to directions or orders or writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition,
quo warranto and certiorari. The term ” writs in the nature of ” widened the court’s discretionary
powers in granting relief by releasing Indian courts from the procedural technicalities that govern
procedures and rules in English law. The courts are empowered to give declaratory relief, issue an
injunction or quash an action without recourse to specific writs and this enabled the courts in
choosing proper relief and the court can issue a writ, a mandamus to command action by a public
authority when an authority is vested with power and wrongfully refuses to exercise, to undo what
has been done in contravention of a statute. Writs could be issued against an administrative,
judicial or quasi-judicial authority. An applicant seeking a mandamus must show the duty sought
to be enforced is a public duty, a duty created under the constitution, a statute or some rule of
common law and that duty is mandatory and not discretionary. The broad language used in Article
32 and 226 of the Constitution enables the courts to fashion relief and pass orders consistent with
their own assessment of the public interest and principles of equity.

By the second half of 1970s, the public interest litigation become a model litigation relaxing the
standard of standing. The public interest litigation altered the landscape and the role of the higher
judiciary in India. The Supreme Court and the High Court dealt with series of public grievances
or flagrant human right violations by the State. In a public interest case, the subject matter of
litigation is typically a grievance against the violation of basic human rights of the poor and
helpless and the petitioner seeks to champion a public cause for the benefit of all society.

Traditionally, only a person whose rights were injured was entitled to seek remedy. But that
traditional view of standing prevented the grievances of poor from being heard by court. They
were denied access to justice because of their poverty and the poor and under-privileged suffered
economic reprisals from the dominant sections of the community. In 1981, a seven Judge bench
of the Supreme Court gave a definite opinion regarding the standing and enlarged the scope of
what has been termed as “representative standing”. The court held that it may therefore now be
taken as a well established that where a legal wrong or legal injury is caused to a person or to
determinate class of persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any burden
is imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision or without authority or any
such legal wrong or legal injury or legal burden is threatened and such person or determinate class
of persons is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability of socially or economically
disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief, any member of the public can
maintain an application for appropriate direction, order or writ in the High Court under Article 226
and in case of any fundamental right of such person or determinate class of persons, in the Supreme
Court under Article 32 seeking judicial redress for the legal wrong or injury caused to such person
or determinate class of persons..

The above decision enlarged the scope of the litigation and a large number of cases came to the
Supreme Court of India to protect and preserve the ecology and environment. It is interesting to
note some of the decisions of the Supreme Court of India which gave various directions to help
protect the environment from further degradation. But for the directions by the Supreme Court in
these cases, there would have been large scale deforestation and the air and water would have been
polluted to such an role played by the Supreme Court of India in protecting the environment can
be glanced through some of its decisions.

One Mr. M.C. Mehta, a lawyer practicing in the Supreme court filed series of public interest
litigations. One such case concerned shifting of caustic chlorine and sulphuric acid plants located
in a thickly populated area in Delhi. From that very plant, oleum gas leaked out and it caused some
panic among the neighbourhood residents. The court expanded the scope of Article 32 and said
that in appropriate cases the court can award compensation to the affected party. The court also
said that where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm
results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are
affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate
vis-a-vis the tortuous principles of strict liability under the Rylands vs Fletcher.
The very some petitioner file series of other public interest litigations concerning vehicular
pollution, illegal mining, pollution of Ganga water, pollution of water by tanneries, Taj Mahal. In
many of these cases, Expert Committee were constituted and the
court acted on these Expert Reports and issued various directions. In the case of Taj Mahal,
directions were issued to protect that monument from pollution by air. Vehicular traffic was
restricted in that area and directions were issued to clean the structure.

To ensure ecological stability, at least thirty percent of the nations’s area should be under adequate
forest cover. There was large scale deforestation and the forest cover dwindled to less than eighteen
percent. Originally, the forests were placed on the State List whereby the States alone could make
legislation concerning forests. By 1976, the forests were placed under the Concurrent List and the
Parliament also could make legislations on that subject. Despite the major steps taken by the
Governments, the deforestation continued unabatedly. In 1996, Supreme Court issued sweeping
directions to oversee the enforcement of Forest Laws across the nation. In T.N. Godavarman
Tirumalpad vs Union of India, the Supreme Court to give effect to the provision of National Forest
Policy 1988. The Court gave notice to the Union Government and State Governments. Forest must
be understood according to its dictionary meaning and the description covers all statutory
recognized forest, whether designated as ‘reserved’, ‘protected’ or not, including any area recorded
in Government records as forest.
Forest Conservation Law has also been significantly been impacted through another case, Centre
for Environmental Law (WWF) – India v. Union of India concerning national parks and
sanctuaries. While hearing this case, the Supreme Court through one of its interim orders on 13-
11-2000 has restrained all State Governments from de-reserving national parks, sanctuaries and
forests.
The impact of both these judgments has been that : all on-going activities must be stopped –
without prior approval of the Central Government. There would be complete ban on felling of
trees. Feeling of trees in all forests is to remain suspended except in accordance with the working
plans of the State Government, as approved by Central Government. Where permit system is in
vogue, the Department of Forests or State Forest Corporation alone can cut trees. There shall be
complete ban on movement of cut trees and timber from the North Easter States to other parts of
the country, either by rail, road or waterways. Workers in the wood-based industries should be
paid their usual wages. Ecologically-sensitive area is to be found out and totally excluded from
exploitation.

In effect, all State Governments have been prohibited from using forest lands for non-forest
purposes without the prior approval of the Central Government in accordance with the Forest
Conservation Act, 1980. Through the same order the Court has also stayed all non-forest activities
that were being carried out without the prior approval of the Central Government. Resultantly, the
power to denotify/dereserve national parks and wild life sanctuaries that vested with the State
Governments was transferred to the National Board for Wild Life through and Amendment that
came into effect from 2003. By notify of the court’s orders even the National Board for Wild Life
cannot exercise this power without the approval of the Supreme Court.

It may also be noted that the National Commission that is set up to review the working of the
Constitution of India in its report submitted to the Central Government has recommended the
addition of a separate article (30-D) in the Constitution of India which would confer the stature of
a fundamental right within the Indian Constitution to the right to save drinking water, clean
environment etc.

Thus, even a cursory study of the judgments of the Indian courts especially the Supreme Court
would reflect the consistent commitment of the courts towards the protection of the environment.
Very often the courts have had to not only lay down the law but also closely monitor its
implementation due tot the political compulsions of the Government. The executive needs to show
stronger commitment towards implementation of environment related laws. However, its needs to
be appreciated that the efforts of the courts can only achieve marginal success unless there is social,
political and economic change in the Government as well as of people towards adhering to a model
of sustainable development. Perhaps the solution towards protecting and utilizing nature’s bounty
in a sustainable manner lies in an introspection towards the life styles that modern world is
increasingly adopting. Concerned citizens of the world must begin by advocating a reduction of
materialistic lifestyle based on the philosophy of the developed world, leading a life in harmony
with nature, having allow ecological footprint and adopting solutions towards equitable growth
and development in a manner that does not harm the environment.

A recent newspaper report source to the AFP news agency quotes an article from the Science
Journal brings into sharp focus some mind boggling facts. The report states that as of 1995 only
17% of the worlds land area remains truly wild – with no human populations, crops road access or
nighttime light detectable by satellite. Half of the world’s surface area is used for crops or grazing;
more than half of all forests have been lost to land conversion; the largest land mammals on several
continents have been eliminated; shipping lanes crisscross the oceans. Due to extensive damming,
nearly six times as much water is held in artificial storage world wide as is free-flowing. Subtle
and not so subtle changes brought about by man upon the environment are evident everywhere.
The report states the natural selection has been supplanted by human selection, meaning that
certain species – such as companion pets- thrive, while others – such as river trout – have been
altered specifically for human consumption often to their detriment. And, thus, altering ecosystems
has left many species vulnerable to disturbances and less resilient. Such shrilling fact ought to
serve as a constant reminder to us to maintain our commitment to the protection of our
environment.

The contribution of the Supreme Court of India in protecting the environment and ecology, forest
wild life, etc. has been phenomenal. Despite the limitations of jurisdiction, the Court played a vital
role in this regard. More importantly what is needed from an environmental angle is a vision for
the future. We have got enough laws to protect the environment, but its implementation is in the
hands of administrative authorities. Good governance free from corruption is the basic need to
protect the environment. The words of Justice Frankfurter are apt, quoting ” An onerous
obligation ……. We owe to posterity…… clean air, clean water, greenery and open space. They
ought to be elevated to the status of birth right of every citizen .”

CHALLENGES:
Population control:

As the century begins, natural resources are under increasing pressure, threatening public health
and development. Water shortages, soil exhaustion, loss of forests, air and water pollution, and
degradation of coastlines afflict many areas. As the world’s population grows, improving living
standards without destroying the environment is a global challenge. Most developed economies
currently consume resources much faster than they can regenerate. Most developing countries with
rapid population growth face the urgent need to improve living standards. As we humans exploit
nature to meet present needs, are we destroying resources needed for the future?
As population growth slows, countries can invest more in education, health care, job creation, and
other improvements that help boost living standards.11 In turn, as individual income, savings, and
investment rise, more resources become available that can boost productivity. This dynamic
process has been identified as one of the key reasons that the economies of many Asian countries
grew rapidly between 1960 and 1990.5

If every country made a commitment to population stabilization and resource conservation, the
world would be better able to meet the challenges of sustainable development. Practicing
sustainable development requires a combination of wise public investment, effective natural
resource management, cleaner agricultural and industrial technologies, less pollution, and slower
population growth.
Fertilizers & Pesticides

The downside of fertilizers is that some portion inevitably washes into waterways along with
eroded sediments. This nonpoint source runoff occurs nationwide, and the nitrogen fertilizer finds
its way into rivers, lakes and the ocean where it causes eutrophication and "dead zones" that kill
aquatic life. Eutrophication is a process whereby nitrogen feeds an algal bloom, but when the short-
lived algae die, decomposing bacteria then consume most of the available oxygen, suffocating
aquatic life. Additionally, use of artificial fertilizers in place of animal or "green" manure--cover
crops plowed into the soil--eventually can deplete soils of organic matter, making them lose their
ability to hold water and more subject to erosion.
According to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, pesticides have as yet
incompletely understood effects on humans. Most people are exposed to a certain level of
pesticides. Farmers who experience routine exposure to pesticides have exhibited neurological
symptoms such as headache and hand tremors. Children, in particular, may be more susceptible to
negative effects resulting from pesticide exposure. Pesticide runoff can have devastating effects
on nontarget organisms as well. For example, roundup, an extremely common herbicide used in
agriculture, is highly toxic to fish and amphibians. The National Coalition for Pesticide-Free
Lawns says, "Of 30 commonly used lawn pesticides, 19 are linked with cancer or carcinogencity,
13 are linked with birth defects, 21 with reproductive effects, 26 with liver or kidney damage, 15
with neurotoxicity, and 11 with disruption of the endocrine system."2

2
http://www.livestrong.com/article/139831-the-effects-fertilizers-pesticides/
Deforestation:

Deforestation is clearing Earth's forests on a massive scale, often resulting in damage to the quality
of the land. Forests still cover about 30 percent of the world’s land area, but swaths the size of
Panama are lost each and every year.

The world’s rain forests could completely vanish in a hundred years at the current rate of
deforestation.

Forests are cut down for many reasons, but most of them are related to money or to people’s need
to provide for their families.The biggest driver of deforestation is agriculture. Farmers cut forests
to provide more room for planting crops or grazing livestock. Often many small farmers will each
clear a few acres to feed their families by cutting down trees and burning them in a process known
as “slash and burn” agriculture.

Logging operations, which provide the world’s wood and paper products, also cut countless trees
each year. Loggers, some of them acting illegally, also build roads to access more and more remote
forests—which leads to further deforestation. Forests are also cut as a result of growing urban
sprawl.

Not all deforestation is intentional. Some is caused by a combination of human and natural factors
like wildfires and subsequent overgrazing, which may prevent the growth of young trees.

Deforestation has many negative effects on the environment. The most dramatic impact is a loss
of habitat for millions of species. Seventy percent of Earth’s land animals and plants live in forests,
and many cannot survive the deforestation that destroys their homes.

Deforestation also drives climate change. Forest soils are moist, but without protection from sun-
blocking tree cover they quickly dry out. Trees also help perpetuate the water cycle by returning
water vapor back into the atmosphere. Without trees to fill these roles, many former forest lands
can quickly become barren deserts.
Removing trees deprives the forest of portions of its canopy, which blocks the sun’s rays during
the day and holds in heat at night. This disruption leads to more extreme temperatures swings that
can be harmful to plants and animals.

Trees also play a critical role in absorbing the greenhouse gases that fuel global warming. Fewer
forests means larger amounts of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere—and increased speed
and severity of global warming.

The quickest solution to deforestation would be to simply stop cutting down trees. Though
deforestation rates have slowed a bit in recent years, financial realities make this unlikely to occur.

A more workable solution is to carefully manage forest resources by eliminating clear-cutting to

make sure that forest environments remain intact. The cutting that does occur should be balanced
by the planting of enough young trees to replace the older ones felled in any given forest. The
number of new tree plantations is growing each year, but their total still equals a tiny fraction of
the Earth’s forested land.3

E-waste:

E-waste is a term used to cover almost all types of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) that
has or could enter the waste stream. Although e-waste is a general term, it can be considered to
cover TVs, computers, mobile phones, white goods (e.g. fridges, washing machines, dryers etc),
home entertainment and stereo systems, toys, toasters, kettles – almost any household or business
item with circuitry or electrical components with power or battery supply.

one can clearly grasp and understand the e-waste problem is of global concern because of the
nature of production and disposal of waste in a globalized world. Although it is difficult to quantify
global e-waste amounts, we do know that large amounts are ending up in places where processing
occurs at a very rudimentary level.This raises concerns about resource efficiency and also the
immediate concerns of the dangers to humans and the environment.

There is a long and often complicated chain of events in the e-waste problem, beginning from an
idea that someone has for a new product and then its production, ending in its purchase and

3
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation-overview/
eventual disposal by the end user. By engaging with various stakeholders and relevant scientific
wisdom within this chain of events, we are on the way to Solve the E-waste Problem (StEP).4

The greenhouse:

The greenhouse effect is a natural process by which some of the radiant heat from the Sun is
captured in the lower atmosphere of the Earth, thus maintaining the temperature of the Earth's
surface. The gases that help capture the heat, called “greenhouse gases,” include water vapor,
carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and a variety of manufactured chemicals. Some are
emitted from natural sources; others are anthropogenic, resulting from human activities.

Over the past several decades, rising concentrations of greenhouse gases have been detected in the
Earth's atmosphere. Although there is not universal agreement within the scientific community on
the impacts of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, it has been theorized that they may
lead to an increase in the average temperature of the Earth's surface. To date, it has been difficult
to note such an increase conclusively because of the differences in temperature around the Earth
and throughout the year, and because of the difficulty of distinguishing permanent temperature
changes from the normal fluctuations of the Earth's climate. In addition, there is not universal
agreement among scientists and climatologists on the potential impacts of an increase in the
average temperature of the Earth, although it has been hypothesized that it could lead to a variety
of changes in the global climate, sea level, agricultural patterns, and ecosystems that could be, on
net, detrimental.

The most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that:
“Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the
expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability, and because there are
uncertainties in key factors. These include the magnitudes and patterns of long-term variability
and the time-evolving pattern of forcing by, and response to, changes in concentrations of
greenhouse gases and aerosols, and land surface changes. Nevertheless, the balance of evidence
suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate”5

Industrial pollution:

4
http://www.step-initiative.org/index.php/Initiative_WhatIsEwaste.html
5
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004686.html
Industrial pollution is pollution which can be directly linked with industry, in contrast to other
pollution sources. This form of pollution is one of the leading causes of pollution worldwide; in
the United States, for example, the Environmental Protective Agency estimates that up to 50% of
the nation's pollution is caused by industry. Because of its size and scope, industrial pollution is a
serious problem for the entire planet, especially in nations which are rapidly industrializing, like
China.
This form of pollution dates back to antiquity, but widespread industrial pollution accelerated
rapidly in the 1800s, with the start of the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution
mechanized means of production, allowing for a much greater volume of production, and
generating a corresponding increase in pollution. The problem was compounded by the use of fuels
like coal, which is notoriously unclean, and a poor understanding of the causes and consequences
of pollution.
There are a number of forms of industrial pollution. One of the most common is water pollution,
caused by dumping of industrial waste into waterways, or improper containment of waste, which
causes leakage into groundwater and waterways. Industrial pollution can also impact air quality,
and it can enter the soil, causing widespread environmental problems.
Because of the nature of the global environment, industrial pollution is never limited to industrial
nations. Samples of ice cores from Antarctica and the Arctic both show high levels of industrial
pollutants, illustrating the immense distances which pollutants can travel, and traces of industrial
pollutants have been identified in isolated human, animal, and plant populations as well.

Industrial pollution hurts the environment in a range of ways, and it has a negative impact on
human lives and health. Pollutants can kill animals and plants, imbalance ecosystems, degrade air
quality radically, damage buildings, and generally degrade quality of life. Factory workers in areas
with uncontrolled industrial pollution are especially vulnerable.
A growing awareness of factory pollution and its consequences has led to tighter restrictions on
pollution all over the world, with nations recognizing that they have an obligation to protect
themselves and their neighbors from pollution. However, industrial pollution also highlights a
growing issue: the desire of developing nations to achieve first world standards of living and
production. As these countries industrialize, they add to the global burden of industrial pollution,
triggering serious discussions and arguments about environmental responsibility and a desire to
reach a global agreement on pollution issues.6

Hazardous waste problem:

Disposal options for hazardous waste include landfills, injection wells , incineration,
and bioremediation , as well as several others. The greatest concern with the disposal of
hazardous waste in landfills or injection wells is that toxic substances will leak into surrounding
groundwater. Groundwater is a major source of drinking water worldwide and once it is
contaminated, pollutants are extremely difficult and costly to remove. In some instances, it is
impossible to remove groundwater contamination. The ideal disposal method is the destruction
and conversion of hazardous waste to a non-hazardous form. New technology for hazardous and
mixed low-level radioactive waste conversion includes a high-temperature plasma torch that
converts low-level radioactive wastes to environmentally safe glass. Conversion to )

environmentally safe substances can be very expensive for some types of hazardous wastes and
technically impossible for others, creating the need for alternative disposal methods.

The most common form of hazardous waste disposal in the United States is landfilling. Hazardous
waste landfills are highly regulated and are required to include clay liners, monitoring wells, and
groundwater barriers. The 1984 Hazardous Solid Waste Amendments require the monitoring of
groundwater near landfills for thirty years. Injection wells may be used to inject hazardous waste
deep into the earth, but problems result with aquifer contamination and the ultimate fate of the
hazardous waste after injection is unknown.

Conclusion

6
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-industrial-pollution.htm
Global climate change is causing these areas to experience an increasingly sparse and erratic
rainfall pattern and a lengthened dry season, affecting the livelihoods of thousands of villagers,
some areas are also facing water shortages. People are becoming aware of sick of global warming,
so they cultivate more and more trees, planting mangrove forest by the sites of the coastal areas
and reduce the usage of plastic. They have sowed more than 12 million seeds & half a million of
plants. Planting trees balances carbon emissions and pollution. There are organizations that will
help you offset your carbon footprint. The deforestation comes in a close second in causes for
global warming.
There is still much that is unknown about the potential health effects of global climate change. The
various phenomena that can be said to contribute to the rubric include stratospheric ozone
depletion, global warming, acid aerosol formation, desertification, and deforestation. At the
current time, these phenomena are being investigated separately, yet the case can and should be
made that these things are happening concurrently and there are many instances where interactions
are possible as well as likely. Thus, a more global view is required, particularly with regard to the
science, but also with regard to policy. These phenomena are not occurring independently, and to
analyze them and try to develop responses to them as though they were seems an exercise designed
to fall short of the optimum solution. Although it is sometimes helpful to divide a problem into
components in order to analyze what contributions are made by the various pieces, at some point
the analyst has to reassemble the parts and look for the sum of the effects. This has not yet been
done in the public health arena regarding global climate change, and there is very little evidence
that it is being done in other important areas such as agriculture and natural resources. At last,
global warming can be dealt with only through international agreement. The context is one of game
theory, and the stressing need is to design incentive systems for global cooperation. The Montreal
protocol on ozone may be an ineffective guide to the prospects for a greenhouse agreement. The
most urgent need is to develop appropriate policy instruments and compensatory mechanisms for
the best results. The growing recognition that greenhouse gas reductions are not the only option
we have to slow and ultimately reverse global warming. Restoring and expanding global forests
can also cool the planet.
References:
1. Bisgrove R, Hadley P (2002) Gardening in the global greenhouse: the impacts of climate change
on gardens in the UK. UKCIP, Oxford, UK.

2. Cassar M (2005) Climate Change and the Historic Environment. Centre for Sustainable
Heritage, University College London, London, UK.

3. Cranfield S (2001) UK: United Kingdom Climate Impacts Programme, Department of the
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and United Kingdom Water Industries Research.

4. Harrabin R (2007) How climate change hits India's poor. BBC News.

5. Holman I, Loveland PJ, Nicholls RJ, Shackley S, Berry PM, et al. (2001) REGIS - Regional
climate change impact and response studies in East Anglia and in North West England (RegIS).
DEFRA, UK Climate Impacts Programme, UK.

6. Hulme M, Jenkins GJ, Lu X, Turnpenny JR, Mitchell TD, et al. (2002) Climate change scenarios
for the United Kingdom: the UKCIP02 Scientific Report. Open Grey: 119.

7. Karanth KP (2006) Out-of-India Gondwanan origin of some tropical Asian biota. Current
Science WWF International Organization 6: 1-4.

8. McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS, et al. (2001) A Report on Working
Group II: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Summary for Policymakers, IPCC: 1-18.

9. Epstein PR (2002) Is Global Warming Harmful to Health? South American Magazine.

10. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Goddard Institute for Space Studies (2005)
Air Pollution as Climate Forcing. Goddard Space Flight Center.

11. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Greenhouse_Gas_by_ Sector.png

12. Anand SV (2013) Global Environmental Issues. 2: 632 doi:10.4172/ scientificreports.632