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 Yet its essence will never become outdated.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

1
http://steconomiceuoradea.ro/anale/volume/2008/v2-economy-and-business-administration/101.pdf
national 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

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

2
http://www.livestrong.com/article/139831-the-effects-fertilizers-pesticides/
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.
3
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation-overview/
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
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

4
http://www.step-initiative.org/index.php/Initiative_WhatIsEwaste.html
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:
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

5
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004686.html
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.

6
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-industrial-pollution.htm
Conclusion

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