Centre for Science and Environment masthead Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Instagram Donate

Cse In News

Cse In News

Nearly everyone in the world breathes bad air. This is what you ca do to lower your risk

What are the most dangerous kinds of air pollutants and their sources? Air pollutants come from people burning things: Fuels such as coal, natural gas, diesel and gasoline electricity and transportation; crops or trees for agricultural purposes; or as a result of wildres. While air quality varies dramatically from place to place and day to day, nearly the entire world - about 99% of the global population - is exposed to air at some point that doesn't meet the strict standards set by the World Health Organization. Polluted air, laden with noxious gasses or tiny, invisible particles that burrow into human bodies, kills 7 million people prematurely every year, the U.N. health agency estimates. And for the millions living in some of the world's smoggiest cities - many of them in Asia like New Delhi; Dhaka, Bangladesh; Bangkok; and Jakarta, Indonesia - bad air might seem inescapable.

Air purifiers, masks and staying indoors: How to reduce your risk from air pollution

Nearly the entire world is exposed to air at some point that doesn't meet the strict standards set by the World Health Organization. Everyone loves a breath of fresh air. Unfortunately, too often our air is anything but fresh. While air quality varies dramatically from place to place and day to day, nearly the entire world - about 99 per cent of the global population - is exposed to air at some point that doesn't meet the strict standards set by the World Health Organization. Polluted air, laden with noxious gasses or tiny, invisible particles that burrow into human bodies, kills 7 million people prematurely every year, the UN health agency estimates. For the millions living in some of the world's smoggiest cities - New Delhi; Dhaka, Bangladesh; Bangkok; and Jakarta, Indonesia - bad air might seem inescapable. What are the most dangerous kinds of air pollutants and their sources? Air pollutants often come from people burning things: Fuels such as coal, natural gas, diesel and gasoline for electricity and transportation; crops or trees for agricultural purposes; or as a result of wildfires. Fine, inhalable particles, known as particulate matter, are among the most dangerous. The tiniest of these - known as PM 2.5 because they are less than 2.5 microns in diameter - can get deep into human lungs and are mostly created by burning fuels. Coarser particles, known as PM 10, are linked to agriculture, roadways, mining or the wind blowing eroded dust, according to the WHO. Other dangerous pollutants include gases like nitrogen dioxide or sulfur dioxide, which are also produced from burning fuels, said Anumita Roychowdhury, an air pollution expert at the Center for Science and Environment in New Delhi. The sources and intensity of air pollution vary in different cities and seasons. For instance, old motorbikes and industrial boilers are major contributors to bad air in the Indonesian capital Jakarta while the burning of agricultural waste is a major reason for air pollution spikes in cities in Thailand and India. Brick kilns that burn coal add to pollution in Dhaka, Bangladesh's capital. And seasonal forest fires cause problems in Brazil and North America. What health problems can air pollution cause? Air pollution is the second-largest risk factor for early death globally, behind high blood pressure, according to a recent report by the Health Effects Institute. Short-term exposure can trigger asthma attacks and increase the risk of heart attacks and stroke, especially in the elderly or people with medical problems. Long-term exposure can cause serious heart and lung problems that can lead to death, including heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung infections. A recent analysis by the UN children's agency found that more than 500 million children in East Asia and Pacific countries breathe unhealthy air and the pollution is linked to the deaths of 100 children under five every day. June Kunugi, UNICEF Regional Director for East Asia, said the polluted air compromises growth, harms lungs and impacts cognitive abilities. "Every breath matters, but for too many children every breath can bring harm," she said. What's the best way to tell if air is safe? Over 6,000 cities in 117 countries now monitor air quality, and many weather mobile apps include air quality information. But trying to gauge how bad the air is by looking at these numbers can be confusing. To help people understand air quality levels more easily, many countries have adopted an air quality index or AQI - a numerical scale where larger numbers mean worse air. They are also often assigned different colours to show whether the air is clean or not.

Nearly Everyone in the World Breathes Bad Air. This Is What You Can Do To Lower Your Risk

Everyone loves a breath of fresh air. Unfortunately, too often our air is anything but fresh. While air quality varies dramatically from place to place and day to day, nearly the entire world — about 99% of the global population — is exposed to air at some point that doesn’t meet the strict standards set by the World Health Organization. Polluted air, laden with noxious gasses or tiny, invisible particles that burrow into human bodies, kills 7 million people prematurely every year, the U.N. health agency estimates. And for the millions living in some of the world’s smoggiest cities — many of them in Asia like New Delhi; Dhaka, Bangladesh; Bangkok; and Jakarta, Indonesia — bad air might seem inescapable. But there are things that people can do, starting with understanding that the air isn’t only polluted when it looks smoggy, said Tanushree Ganguly of the Energy Policy Institute of Chicago in India. “Blue skies can’t guarantee you clean air,” she said. What are the most dangerous kinds of air pollutants and their sources? Air pollutants often come from people burning things: Fuels such as coal, natural gas, diesel and gasoline for electricity and transportation; crops or trees for agricultural purposes; or as a result of wildfires. Fine, inhalable particles, known as particulate matter, are among the most dangerous. The tiniest of these — known as PM 2.5 because they are less than 2.5 microns in diameter — can get deep into human lungs and are mostly created by burning fuels. Coarser particles, known as PM 10, are linked to agriculture, roadways, mining or the wind blowing eroded dust, according to the WHO. Other dangerous pollutants include gases like nitrogen dioxide or sulfur dioxide, which are also produced from burning fuels, said Anumita Roychowdhury, an air pollution expert at the Center for Science and Environment in New Delhi. The sources and intensity of air pollution varies in different cities and seasons. For instance, old motorbikes and industrial boilers are major contributors to bad air in Indonesian capital Jakarta while burning of agricultural waste is a major reason for air pollution spikes in cities in Thailand and India. Brick kilns that burn coal adds to pollution in Dhaka, Bangladesh’s capital. And seasonal forest fires cause problems in Brazil and North America.

Nearly everyone in the world breathes bad air. This is what you can do to lower your risk

HANOI, Vietnam (AP) — Everyone loves a breath of fresh air. Unfortunately, too often our air is anything but fresh. While air quality varies dramatically from place to place and day to day, nearly the entire world — about 99% of the global population — is exposed to air at some point that doesn't meet the strict standards set by the World Health Organization. Polluted air, laden with noxious gasses or tiny, invisible particles that burrow into human bodies, kills 7 million people prematurely every year, the U.N. health agency estimates. And for the millions living in some of the world’s smoggiest cities — many of them in Asia like New Delhi; Dhaka, Bangladesh; Bangkok; and Jakarta, Indonesia — bad air might seem inescapable. But there are things that people can do, starting with understanding that the air isn’t only polluted when it looks smoggy, said Tanushree Ganguly of the Energy Policy Institute of Chicago in India. “Blue skies can’t guarantee you clean air,” she said. Air pollutants often come from people burning things: Fuels such as coal, natural gas, diesel and gasoline for electricity and transportation; crops or trees for agricultural purposes; or as a result of wildfires. Fine, inhalable particles, known as particulate matter, are among the most dangerous. The tiniest of these — known as PM 2.5 because they are less than 2.5 microns in diameter — can get deep into human lungs and are mostly created by burning fuels. Coarser particles, known as PM 10, are linked to agriculture, roadways, mining or the wind blowing eroded dust, according to the WHO. Other dangerous pollutants include gases like nitrogen dioxide or sulfur dioxide, which are also produced from burning fuels, said Anumita Roychowdhury, an air pollution expert at the Center for Science and Environment in New Delhi. The sources and intensity of air pollution varies in different cities and seasons. For instance, old motorbikes and industrial boilers are major contributors to bad air in Indonesian capital Jakarta while burning of agricultural waste is a major reason for air pollution spikes in cities in Thailand and India. Brick kilns that burn coal adds to pollution in Dhaka, Bangladesh's capital. And seasonal forest fires cause problems in Brazil and North America.

Nearly everyone in world breathes bad air. This is what you can do to lower your risk

Everyone loves a breath of fresh air. Unfortunately, too often our air is anything but fresh. While air quality varies dramatically from place to place and day to day, nearly the entire world — about 99% of the global population — is exposed to air at some point that doesn't meet the strict standards set by the World Health Organisation, the agency has reported. Polluted air, laden noxious gasses or tiny, invisible particles that burrow into human bodies, kills 7 million people prematurely every year, the UN health agency estimates. And for the millions living in some of the world's smoggiest cities — many of them in Asia like New Delhi; Dhaka, Bangladesh; Bangkok and Jakarta, Indonesia — bad air might seem inescapable. But there are things that people can do, starting with understanding that the air isn't only polluted when it looks smoggy, said Tanushree Ganguly of the Energy Policy Institute of Chicago in India. “Blue skies can't guarantee you clean air,” she said. What are the most dangerous kinds of air pollutants and their sources? Air pollutants often come from people burning things: Fuels such as coal, natural gas, diesel and gasoline for electricity and transportation; crops or trees for agricultural purposes or as a result of wildfires. Fine, inhalable particles, known as particulate matter, are among the most dangerous. The tiniest of these — known as PM 2.5 because they are less than 2.5 microns in diameter — can get deep into human lungs and are mostly created by burning fuels. Coarser particles, known as PM 10, are linked to agriculture, roadways, mining or the wind blowing eroded dust, according to the WHO. Other dangerous pollutants include gases like nitrogen dioxide or sulfur dioxide, which are also produced from burning fuels, said Anumita Roychowdhury, an air pollution expert at the Centre for Science and Environment in New Delhi. The sources and intensity of air pollution varies in different cities and seasons. For instance, old motorbikes and industrial boilers are major contributors to bad air in Indonesian capital Jakarta while burning of agricultural waste is a major reason for air pollution spikes in cities in Thailand and India. Brick kilns that burn coal adds to pollution in Dhaka, Bangladesh's capital. And seasonal forest fires cause problems in Brazil and North America. What health problems can air pollution cause? Air pollution is the second-largest risk factor for early death globally, behind high blood pressure, according to a recent report by the Health Effects Institute. Short-term exposure can trigger asthma attacks and increase the risk of heart attacks and stroke, especially in the elderly or people with medical problems. Long-term exposure can cause serious heart and lung problems that can lead to death, including heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung infections. A recent analysis by the UN children's agency found that more than 500 million children in East Asia and Pacific countries breathe unhealthy air and the pollution is linked to the deaths of 100 children under 5 every day. June Kunugi, UNICEF Regional Director for East Asia, said the polluted air compromises growth, harms lungs and impacts their cognitive abilities. “Every breath matters, but for too many children every breath can bring harm,” she said. What's the best way to tell if air is safe? Over 6,000 cities in 117 countries now monitor air quality, and many weather mobile apps include air quality information. But trying to gauge how bad the air is by looking at these numbers can be confusing. To help people understand air quality levels more easily, many countries have adopted an air quality index or AQI — a numerical scale where larger numbers mean worse air. They are also often assigned different colours to show whether the air is clean or not. But different countries have different air quality standards. For instance, India's daily PM 2.5 limit is more than 1.5-times higher than Thailand's limit and 4-times higher than WHO standards. This means that countries calculate AQIs differently and the numbers aren't comparable with each other. This is also why sometimes AQI scores by private companies using stricter standards may be different from those calculated by national regulators. What are the best ways to protect yourself from air pollution? The goal, of course, is to limit exposure when air quality is bad, by staying inside or wearing a mask. Staying inside however, isn't always possible, especially for people who must live or work outside, noted Danny Djarum, an air quality researcher at World Resources Institute, an environmental advocacy group. “They can't really afford not going out,” he said. Pakaphol Asavakomolnant, an office worker in Bangkok, said that he wears a mask every day and avoids riding to work on a motorbike. “I get a sore throat when I come to work in the morning and I forget to wear a mask,” he said. People also need to be aware of indoor air pollution which can often be caused by common household activities like cooking or even burning an incense stick. What are the benefits — and limitations — of air purifiers? Air purifiers can help reduce indoor air pollution, but they have their limitations. They work by pulling air from a room, pushing it through a filter that traps pollutants before circulating it back. But they're are most effective when used in small spaces and when people are nearby. Air purifiers can only clean a certain amount of air, said Rajasekhar Balasubramanian, who studies urban air quality at the National University of Singapore. “If we have a tiny air purifier in a large room it won't be effective,” he said. Air purifiers are also too expensive for people in many in developing countries. “The majority of people who are affected by air pollution can't really afford air purifiers,” said WRI's Djarum. (AP) AMS

Casi todos respiramos aire contaminado. Aquí algunos consejos para minimizarlo

HANOI, Vietnam (AP) — A todo el mundo le encanta una bocanada de aire fresco. Por desgracia, con demasiada frecuencia nuestro aire es todo menos fresco. Aunque la calidad del aire varía drásticamente de un lugar a otro y de un día para otro, un 99% de la población mundial está expuesto en algún momento a un aire que no cumple con los estrictos estándares establecidos por la Organización Mundial de la Salud. El aire contaminado, cargado de gases nocivos o partículas diminutas e invisibles que se introducen en el cuerpo humano, mata a 7 millones de personas prematuramente cada año, según estima la agencia para la salud de la ONU. Y para los millones que viven en algunas de las ciudades más contaminadas del mundo —muchas de ellas en Asia, como Nueva Delhi, India; Dacca, Bangladesh; Bangkok, Tailandia; y Yakarta, Indonesia— el aire contaminado puede parecer inevitable. Pero hay cosas que la gente puede hacer, y lo primero es entender que el aire no solamente está contaminado cuando parece brumoso y con smog, apuntó Tanushree Ganguly, del Instituto de Política Energética de la Universidad de Chicago en India. “Los cielos azules no pueden garantizarle un aire limpio”, dijo ella. ¿Cuáles son los contaminantes del aire más peligrosos y sus fuentes? Los contaminantes del aire a menudo provienen de la quema de cosas por parte de la gente: combustibles como el carbón, el gas natural, el diésel y la gasolina para generar electricidad y para el transporte; cultivos o árboles para fines agrícolas; o como resultado de incendios forestales. Las partículas finas e inhalables, conocidas como material particulado (PM, por sus siglas en inglés) o partículas en suspensión, están entre las más peligrosas. Las más pequeñas de ellas —conocidas como PM 2,5 porque tienen menos de 2,5 micras de diámetro— pueden penetrar profundamente en los pulmones y se crean principalmente al quemar combustibles. Las partículas más gruesas, llamadas PM 10, están vinculadas a la agricultura, las carreteras, la minería o el polvo erosionado por el viento, según la OMS. Otros contaminantes peligrosos incluyen gases como el dióxido de nitrógeno y el dióxido de azufre, que también se producen al quemar combustibles, dijo Anumita Roychowdhury, experta en contaminación del aire del Centro para la Ciencia y el Medio Ambiente, en Nueva Delhi. Las fuentes y la intensidad de la contaminación del aire varían en diferentes ciudades y estaciones. Por ejemplo, las motocicletas viejas y las calderas industriales son los principales contribuyentes al aire contaminado de Yakarta, la capital de Indonesia; mientras que la quema de desechos agrícolas es una de las principales razones de los picos de contaminación del aire en las ciudades de Tailandia e India. Los hornos de ladrillos que queman carbón aumentan la contaminación en Dhaka, la capital de Bangladesh; y los incendios forestales estacionales causan problemas en Brasil y Norteamérica.

State has won 2 awards and 'Green School' tag for 196 institutions this year

A team of experts from Finland accompanied by delegates from the Punjab State Council for Science and Technology (PSCST) had toured various government schools in the rural border belt of Amritsar last year to explore collaboration in field of sustainable practices and effective solid and liquid waste management. The visit was organised under the Green Schools Programme, an initiative of the PSCST and School Education Department, under which educational institutions undergo rigorous audit processes on six essential standards of water, energy, livelihood, food, land and air to optimise resource management. Done at the national level, in collaboration with the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), the initiative has recognised Punjab’s leadership in promoting environmental sustainability and awareness in schools. While the programme has 11,917 schools registered in Punjab, 7,406 have completed environmental audit and 196 have qualified for the status of ‘Green School’ this year. Among these, 171 are government schools and 25 are private institutions. PSCST Executive Director Pritpal Singh and Joint Director Kulbir Singh Bath, who received the awards for schools from renowned environmentalist Sonam Wangchuk and Sunita Narayan, Head, Centre for Science and Environment, said Punjab schools were undergoing sustainable reforms. The PSCST had carried out rejuvenation of schools, bringing the number of ‘Green Schools’ from 70 in 2023-24 to 196 in 2024-25. Prithpal Singh, Executive Director, PSCST, said, “We have set up 8,000 eco clubs in schools and colleges under the programme and allotted Rs 1 lakh per district for its implementation at the ground level through these clubs. In each district, teachers were imparted special training in sustainable practices and nodal officers were appointed. We are also running environment education programmes in educational institutions.”

World must explore solutions to environmental crises without relying on US Experts

US President Donald Trump's decision to abandon efforts to curb plastic pollution has raised concerns among experts, who warn that the global progress in tackling the crisis could slow down and suggest that the world must now look for solutions, without relying on the United States. Trump, who had already withdrawn the US from the Paris climate agreement, signed an executive order on Monday reversing restrictions on plastic straws, declaring, "Paper straws don't work." But the move is about more than just straws. It signals a broader setback in the global fight against plastic pollution, especially as countries are negotiating a legally-binding treaty to address the crisis. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the world produces more than 430 million tonnes of plastic every year, two-thirds of which are short-lived products that soon become waste, polluting oceans and even entering the human food chain. If no urgent action is taken, the global plastic waste could nearly triple to 1.2 billion tonnes by 2060. Chandrabhushan, president and CEO of policy think tank International Forum for Environment, Sustainability and Technology, said Trump's stance is unsurprising. "The US under Trump will walk away from every environmental negotiation. The US is the world's largest consumer of plastic, oil and gas. Under Trump, the progress made in the past 20 years on climate change, plastic pollution and biodiversity conservation will be lost," he said. He added that rebuilding global trust and momentum will take at least a decade after Trump's tenure. "The US has always been the biggest obstacle in intergovernmental negotiations, whether on climate change, biodiversity loss or plastic pollution," Chandrabhushan said. "The world now needs to rethink on multilateralism -- how regions can cooperate if a global consensus is not possible. We must explore solutions to climate change and other environmental crises, without relying on the US. However, if the global economy moves forward, the US cannot afford to lag. If everyone transitions to electric vehicles and green energy, how will the US sustain itself by selling oil?" he asked. Harjeet Singh, climate activist and founding director of Satat Sampada Climate Foundation, called the US decision "a gift to the fossil-fuel industry and a betrayal of the global efforts to curb plastic pollution". Despite being the largest historical contributor to fossil-fuel emissions and the biggest per-capita generator of plastic waste, the US is refusing to lead, undermining the plastics treaty negotiations and fuelling the expansion of petrochemicals, he said. "This locks us into a future of more emissions, more waste and greater environmental injustice. It is unacceptable that the US is propping up the very industry driving the climate and ecological crises," Singh said. He said countries must push forward with bold solutions to global crises whether or not the US is on board. "But as the largest historical polluter, the US has the greatest responsibility to act and pay its fair share." Suneel Pandey, director of the Circular Economy and Waste Management Division at The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), highlighted that most polymers come from fossil fuel-based petrochemical industries. "The Trump administration has already signalled that oil companies will continue drilling, leading to more oil production. Naturally, plastic production will also continue. They are not looking to reduce plastic production or consumption," he said. However, Pandey noted that India has already moved away from plastic straws, in line with its commitment to phase out single-use plastic. "This means that the US policy shift will not impact India's initiatives," he said. On the global plastics treaty negotiations, Pandey said a binding agreement remains difficult. "Some countries, led by Russia, oppose a legally-binding treaty. The US is also heading in that direction." Siddhartha Ghanshyam, deputy programme manager of the Solid Waste Management Unit at the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), said the US has never played a leadership role in the plastics treaty negotiations. "The US rarely reveals its position in intergovernmental talks. It does not take a strong stand or actively participate. Traditionally, it has not done enough," he said. Ghanshyam warned that the US decision could embolden countries opposing strong plastic regulations. "Right now, we are at a deadlock. But in the next round of negotiations, the situation may change," he said. Without US support, he added, funding for tackling plastic pollution could shrink. "What the world could have achieved in five years may now take a decade. Progress will be slow but the world will move forward," Ghanshyam said. However, he emphasised that the outcome of the plastics treaty does not depend on a single country. "The US decision will affect negotiations but we should not give it more importance than it deserves," he said.

Green with stupefaction!

Green is the colour of life, of rebirth, of hope. But in today’s world, green is also the colour of deception, manipulation, and the grand illusion of sustainability. From corporate boardrooms to glossy marketing campaigns, the word ‘green’ has become a selling point rather than a commitment. Welcome to the era of ‘green stupefaction,’ where consumers are mesmerized by eco-friendly rhetoric while the reality remains shrouded in smoke and mirrors. Corporations have perfected the art of greenwashing—branding their products as ‘sustainable’ or ‘eco-conscious’ without making any substantial changes to their operations. In India, this practice is alarmingly rampant. A study by the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) revealed that 79% of green claims made by organizations were either exaggerated or misleading (Outlook Business). Take the example of fast fashion brands touting their ‘conscious collections.’ While they market small lines of supposedly sustainable clothing, they continue producing garments at an unprecedented scale, contributing to 92 million tons of textile waste annually. Meanwhile, oil and gas giants in India are now advertising their ‘commitment to net zero’ while simultaneously expanding fossil fuel exploration. Indian consumers are catching on. A YouGov market research study found that 71% of Indian consumers have encountered greenwashing, with 60% expressing concern over these deceptive practices. Worse still, only 29% of consumers trust companies’ environmental claims (Mongabay India). This skepticism presents a significant challenge for brands that genuinely wish to engage in sustainability efforts. If consumers cannot distinguish between genuine sustainability and strategic greenwashing, real environmental progress is at risk. Recognizing the increasing prevalence of greenwashing, the Indian government is taking steps to curb the menace. In February 2024, the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) introduced draft guidelines requiring that all environmental claims be truthful, evidence-backed, and clearly defined. Advertisers can no longer rely on vague language like ‘eco-friendly’ without concrete proof. Moreover, comparisons between ‘green’ and traditional products must be supported by verifiable data (Mongabay India). On the corporate front, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has made Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR) mandatory for the top 1,000 listed companies. However, an analysis of disclosures from 300 companies revealed significant gaps in data quality. Notably, only 25% of these companies conducted a comprehensive value chain assessment for environmental impact (CFA Institute). The problem with India’s sustainability movement is that it focuses disproportionately on minor lifestyle changes while ignoring larger systemic issues. While debates rage over plastic vs. paper straws, India’s deforestation rates continue to soar, with over 38,000 hectares of forest lost in 2023 alone (Global Forest Watch). We take pride in carrying cloth bags but forget that cotton production consumes 22,500 liters of water per kilogram, making it one of the most water-intensive crops in the world (WWF India). While the nation strides towards economic growth, it simultaneously chokes on a toxic cocktail of its own making. Air quality in major cities like Delhi regularly plummets to hazardous levels, exceeding World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines by several folds. Additionally, India generates a staggering 62 million metric tonnes of waste annually. A mere 19% of this is treated, leaving a mountain of untreated garbage polluting the environment and posing serious health hazards. This waste crisis is exacerbated by the rampant use of single-use plastics, choking rivers and oceans. Water scarcity is a looming crisis. Over 70% of India’s surface water is polluted, primarily due to untreated sewage and industrial discharge. The iconic Ganges River, revered as holy, carries billions of liters of untreated waste daily. Deforestation for agriculture and development continues unabated, leading to soil erosion, biodiversity loss, and increased vulnerability to natural disasters. These stark realities should leave us “green with stupefaction.” While individual actions matter, they pale in comparison to the impact of large-scale industrial pollution. The top 100 corporations in India contribute to nearly 70% of the country’s total greenhouse gas emissions, yet public discourse still centers on whether switching to metal straws will save the planet (Centre for Science and Environment).

orld must eplore solutions to environmental crises without relying on US: Eperts

US President Donald Trump's decision to abandon eorts to curb plastic pollution has raised concerns among experts, who warn that the global progress in tackling the crisis could slow down and suggest that the world must now look for solutions, without relying on the United States. Trump, who had already withdrawn the US from the Paris climate agreement, signed an executive order on Monday reversing restrictions on plastic straws, declaring, "Paper straws don't work. But the move is about more than just straws. It signals a broader setback in the global ght against plastic pollution, especially as countries are negotiating a legally-binding treaty to address the crisis. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the world produces more than 430 million tonnes of plastic every year, two-thirds of which are short-lived products that soon become waste, polluting oceans and even entering the human food chain. If no urgent action is taken, the global plastic waste could nearly triple to 1.2 billion tonnes by 2060. Chandrabhushan, president and CEO of policy think tank International Forum for Environment, Sustainability and Technology, said Trump's stance is unsurprising. "The US under Trump will walk away from every environmental negotiation. The US is the world's largest consumer of plastic, oil and gas. Under Trump, the progress made in the past 20 years on climate change, plastic pollution and biodiversity conservation will be lost," he said. He added that rebuilding global trust and momentum will take at least a decade after Trump's tenure. "The US has always been the biggest obstacle in intergovernmental negotiations, whether on climate change, biodiversity loss or plastic pollution," Chandrabhushan said. "The world now needs to rethink on multilateralism -- how regions can cooperate if a global consensus is not possible. We must explore solutions to climate change and other environmental crises, without relying on the US. However, if the global economy moves forward, the US cannot aord to lag. If everyone transitions to electric vehicles and green energy, how will the US sustain itself by selling oil?" he asked. Harjeet Singh, climate activist and founding director of Satat Sampada Climate Foundation, called the US decision "a gift to the fossil-fuel industry and a betrayal of the global eorts to curb plastic pollution". Despite being the largest historical contributor to fossil-fuel emissions and the biggest per-capita generator of plastic waste, the US is refusing to lead, undermining the plastics treaty negotiations and fuelling the expansion of petrochemicals, he said. "This locks us into a future of more emissions, more waste and greater environmental injustice. It is unacceptable that the US is propping up the very industry driving the climate and ecological crises," Singh said. He said countries must push forward with bold solutions to global crises whether or not the US is on board. "But as the largest historical polluter, the US has the greatest responsibility to act and pay its fair share." Suneel Pandey, director of the Circular Economy and Waste Management Division at The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), highlighted that most polymers come from fossil fuel-based petrochemical industries. "The Trump administration has already signalled that oil companies will continue drilling, leading to more oil production. Naturally, plastic production will also continue. They are not looking to reduce plastic production or consumption," he said. in line with its commitment to phase out single-use plastic. "This means that the US policy shift will not impact India's initiatives," he said. On the global plastics treaty negotiations, Pandey said a binding agreement remains diicult. "Some countries, led by Russia, oppose a legally-binding treaty. The US is also heading in that direction." Siddhartha Ghanshyam, deputy programme manager of the Solid Waste Management Unit at the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), said the US has never played a leadership role in the plastics treaty negotiations. "The US rarely reveals its position in intergovernmental talks. It does not take a strong stand or actively participate. Traditionally, it has not done enough," he said. Ghanshyam warned that the US decision could embolden countries opposing strong plastic regulations. "Right now, we are at a deadlock. But in the next round of negotiations, the situation may change," he said. Without US support, he added, funding for tackling plastic pollution could shrink. "What the world could have achieved in ve years may now take a decade. Progress will be slow but the world will move forward," Ghanshyam said. "The US decision will aect negotiations but we should not give it more importance than it deserves," he said.

विश्व को अमेरिका पर निर्भर हुए बिना पर्यावरणीय संकटों का समाधान तलाशना चाहिए: विशेषज्ञ

प्लास्टिक प्रदूषण पर नियंत्रण लगाने के प्रयासों को छोड़ने के अमेरिकी राष्ट्रपति डोनाल्ड ट्रंप के फैसले से विशेषज्ञों के बीच चिंता पैदा हो गई है। विशेषज्ञों ने आगाह किया है कि इस संकट से निपटने में वैश्विक प्रगति धीमी पड़ सकती है। उन्होंने सुझाव दिया कि दुनिया को अब अमेरिका पर निर्भर रहने के बजाय समाधान तलाशना चाहिए। ट्रंप ने सोमवार को कहा कि वह संघीय स्तर पर कागज की स्ट्रॉ के इस्तेमाल पर प्रतिबंध लगा रहे हैं, क्योंकि वे ‘‘टिकाऊ’’ नहीं होते। उन्होंने कहा कि इसके बजाए प्लास्टिक के इस्तेमाल की तरफ बढ़ना चाहिए। इससे पहले ट्रंप अमेरिका को पेरिस जलवायु समझौते से अलग करने की भी घोषणा कर चुके हैं। ट्रंप का यह कदम सिर्फ़ स्ट्रॉ के बारे में नहीं है। यह प्लास्टिक प्रदूषण के खिलाफ़ वैश्विक लड़ाई में एक व्यापक झटका है, खासकर तब जब देश इस संकट से निपटने के लिए कानूनी रूप से बाध्यकारी संधि पर बातचीत कर रहे हैं। संयुक्त राष्ट्र पर्यावरण कार्यक्रम (यूएनईपी) के अनुसार, विश्व में प्रतिवर्ष 43 करोड़ टन से अधिक प्लास्टिक का उत्पादन होता है, जिसमें से दो-तिहाई अल्पकालिक उत्पाद होते हैं, जो शीघ्र ही अपशिष्ट बन जाते हैं, महासागरों को प्रदूषित करते हैं तथा यहां तक ​​कि मानव खाद्य श्रृंखला में भी प्रवेश कर जाते हैं। यदि तत्काल कोई कार्रवाई नहीं की गई, तो 2060 तक वैश्विक प्लास्टिक कचरा लगभग तीन गुना बढ़कर 1.2 अरब टन हो सकता है। ‘‘थिंक टैंक’’ ‘‘इंटरनेशनल फोरम फॉर एनवायरनमेंट, सस्टेनेबिलिटी एंड टेक्नोलॉजी’’ के अध्यक्ष और मुख्य कार्यकारी अधिकारी (सीईओ) चंद्रभूषण ने कहा कि ट्रंप का रुख हैरान करने वाला नहीं है। उन्होंने कहा, ‘‘ट्रंप के नेतृत्व में अमेरिका हर पर्यावरणीय वार्ता से पीछे हट जाएगा। अमेरिका प्लास्टिक, तेल और गैस का दुनिया का सबसे बड़ा उपभोक्ता है। ट्रंप के नेतृत्व में जलवायु परिवर्तन, प्लास्टिक प्रदूषण और जैव विविधता संरक्षण पर पिछले 20 वर्षों में हुई प्रगति खत्म हो जाएगी।’’ उन्होंने कहा कि ट्रंप के कार्यकाल के बाद वैश्विक विश्वास और गति को फिर से बनाने में कम से कम एक दशक लगेगा। चंद्रभूषण ने कहा, ‘‘अमेरिका हमेशा से ही अंतर-सरकारी वार्ताओं में सबसे बड़ी बाधा रहा है, चाहे वह जलवायु परिवर्तन, जैव विविधता की हानि या प्लास्टिक प्रदूषण पर हो।’’ उन्होंने कहा, ‘‘अब दुनिया को बहुपक्षवाद पर पुनर्विचार करने की आवश्यकता है - यदि वैश्विक सहमति संभव नहीं है तो क्षेत्र कैसे सहयोग कर सकते हैं। हमें अमेरिका पर निर्भर हुए बिना जलवायु परिवर्तन और अन्य पर्यावरणीय संकटों के समाधान तलाशने चाहिए।’’ चंद्रभूषण ने कहा, ‘‘हालांकि, यदि वैश्विक अर्थव्यवस्था आगे बढ़ती है, तो अमेरिका पीछे नहीं रह सकता। यदि हर कोई इलेक्ट्रिक वाहनों और हरित ऊर्जा की ओर बढ़ जाता है, तो अमेरिका तेल बेचकर खुद को कैसे बनाए रखेगा?’’ जलवायु कार्यकर्ता और सतत सम्पदा जलवायु फाउंडेशन के संस्थापक निदेशक हरजीत सिंह ने अमेरिकी राष्ट्रपति के निर्णय को ‘‘जीवाश्म ईंधन उद्योग के लिए एक उपहार और प्लास्टिक प्रदूषण को रोकने के वैश्विक प्रयासों के साथ विश्वासघात’’ कहा। उन्होंने कहा कि जीवाश्म ईंधन उत्सर्जन में सबसे बड़ा ऐतिहासिक योगदानकर्ता और प्रति व्यक्ति प्लास्टिक कचरे का सबसे बड़ा उत्पादक होने के बावजूद, अमेरिका नेतृत्व करने से इनकार कर रहा है, जिससे प्लास्टिक संधि वार्ता कमजोर हो रही है और पेट्रोकेमिकल्स के विस्तार को बढ़ावा मिल रहा है। सिंह ने कहा, ‘‘इससे हमारा भविष्य और अधिक उत्सर्जन, अधिक अपशिष्ट और अधिक पर्यावरणीय अन्याय की ओर बढ़ रहा है। यह अस्वीकार्य है कि अमेरिका उसी उद्योग को बढ़ावा दे रहा है जो जलवायु और पारिस्थितिकी संकटों को बढ़ावा दे रहा है।’’ उन्होंने कहा कि देशों को वैश्विक संकटों के लिए साहसिक समाधान के साथ आगे बढ़ना चाहिए, चाहे अमेरिका इसमें शामिल हो या नहीं। सिंह ने कहा, ‘‘लेकिन सबसे बड़े ऐतिहासिक प्रदूषक के रूप में, अमेरिका की सबसे बड़ी जिम्मेदारी है कि वह कार्रवाई करे और अपना उचित हिस्सा अदा करे।’’ ‘द एनर्जी एंड रिसोर्सेज इंस्टीट्यूट’ (टेरी) के ‘सर्कुलर इकोनॉमी’ एवं अपशिष्ट प्रबंधन प्रभाग के निदेशक सुनील पांडे ने बताया कि अधिकांश पॉलिमर जीवाश्म ईंधन आधारित पेट्रोकेमिकल उद्योगों से आते हैं। उन्होंने कहा, ‘‘ट्रंप प्रशासन ने पहले ही संकेत दे दिया है कि तेल कंपनियां ड्रिलिंग जारी रखेंगी, जिससे तेल उत्पादन बढ़ेगा। स्वाभाविक रूप से, प्लास्टिक उत्पादन भी जारी रहेगा। वे प्लास्टिक उत्पादन या खपत को कम करने पर विचार नहीं कर रहे हैं।’’ पांडे ने कहा कि भारत पहले ही प्लास्टिक स्ट्रॉ से दूर हो चुका है, जो एकल-उपयोग वाले प्लास्टिक को चरणबद्ध तरीके से खत्म करने की उसकी प्रतिबद्धता के अनुरूप है। उन्होंने कहा, ‘‘इसका मतलब है कि अमेरिकी नीति में बदलाव से भारत की पहल पर कोई असर नहीं पड़ेगा।’’ वैश्विक प्लास्टिक संधि वार्ता पर पांडे ने कहा कि बाध्यकारी समझौता अभी मुश्किल है। उन्होंने कहा, ‘‘रूस के नेतृत्व में कुछ देश कानूनी रूप से बाध्यकारी संधि का विरोध कर रहे हैं। अमेरिका भी उसी दिशा में आगे बढ़ रहा है।’’ ‘सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड एनवायरनमेंट’ (सीएसई) में ठोस अपशिष्ट प्रबंधन इकाई के उप कार्यक्रम प्रबंधक सिद्धार्थ घनश्याम ने कहा कि प्लास्टिक पर संधि वार्ता में अमेरिका ने कभी भी नेतृत्वकारी भूमिका नहीं निभाई। उन्होंने कहा, ‘‘अमेरिका अंतर-सरकारी वार्ता में शायद ही कभी अपनी स्थिति का खुलासा करता है। वह कोई मजबूत रुख नहीं अपनाता है और न ही सक्रिय रूप से भाग लेता है। परंपरागत रूप से, उसने पर्याप्त कदम नहीं उठाए हैं।’’ घनश्याम ने आगाह किया कि अमेरिका के इस फैसले से प्लास्टिक के सख्त नियमों का विरोध करने वाले देशों को बढ़ावा मिल सकता है। हालांकि, उन्होंने इस बात पर जोर दिया कि प्लास्टिक संधि का नतीजा किसी एक देश पर निर्भर नहीं करता। उन्होंने कहा, ‘‘अमेरिका के फैसले से वार्ता प्रभावित होगी, लेकिन हमें इसे उससे अधिक महत्व नहीं देना चाहिए, जितना यह हकदार है।’’

Urban Sanitation Challenges in India: Shifttowards Decentralized Solutions

This unchecked discharge is transforming our rivers into open sewers, aggravating the twin challenges of water stress and the climate-induced intensification of the water cycle. These factors are further straining our already inadequate water and sanitation infrastructure. Additionally, the growing presence of large informal settlements is compounding the crisis by increasing both water demand and wastewater discharge. According to the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), India currently generates approximately 70,000 million litres of wastewater per day (MLD). However, most cities lack the necessary infrastructure to effectively manage and treat this wastewater. Let’s take a closer look at the situation. Our sanitation systems, often referred to as “flush and forget,” are modelled after those in developed countries. However, they rely heavily on large volumes of water to function effectively, making them unsustainable in water-scarce conditions. Despite the presence of these systems, they demand extensive operations, maintenance, and frequent repairs due to clogging. The situation is even more critical in dense informal settlements, where basic infrastructure is either inadequate or entirely absent. The irony lies in the fact that our densely populated informal settlements rely on non-sewered systems, which are not connected to centralized sewer networks, while affluent and planned colonies benefit from well-established sewered systems. According to the 2011 Census, out of nearly 8,000 cities in India, only 10% have sewered systems, and even those are only partially developed. Urban India’s sanitation challenge is compounded by rapid city expansion and growing populations driven by migration and other factors. To address this, we need a combination of systems that can effectively serve both planned, privileged areas and the underserved peripheral settlements. The second major challenge for urban sanitation is that 40% of India’s total land area—not just urban areas—falls within semiarid and arid zones. Climate change and water stress further diminish the feasibility of traditional sewered systems. Moving forward, decentralized, non-sewered solutions tailored to local contexts should be prioritized. Decentralized systems are less resource-intensive and can function without extensive sewer networks by transporting sewage or septage to localized treatment facilities. These systems also promote greater equity and justice, ensuring that both privileged and underserved settlements have access to proper sanitation and treatment solutions. Another advantage of decentralized sanitation systems is that the waste processed through these treatments can be reused locally, including both treated wastewater and biosolids, making the reuse highly effective. Since 2017, India has implemented a national policy for faecal sludge and septage management, resulting in the establishment of over 500 faecal sludge treatment plants across various states. The Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) has Centre conducted a study on 69 of these treatment plants.

Toxic January for Howrah residents, 13 days of 'very poor' air quality: Report

Howrah’s air quality was “very poor” for nearly half of January, the state pollution control board’s air quality report has shown. Howrah had 13 days of “very poor” air in January. There were 14 days of “poor” air and four days of “moderate” air. Ghusuri suffered the most of all Howrah pockets with the monitoring station there recording 13 “very poor” days and an equal number of “poor” days. According to the National Air Quality Index, prepared by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), very poor air can cause “respiratory illness on prolonged exposure”. Poor air can result in breathing discomfort in most people on prolonged exposure. A resident of Howrah’s Shibpur said he could sense a burning smell in the ambient air on almost all days this winter. “There is a thick haze every morning and dust all around,” he said. Air quality management experts and scientists ascribed the foul air in Howrah to industrial activities, truck traffic and transport terminals. “There is a lot of industrial activity in Howrah. Add to that the large number of trucks plying through Kona Expressway,” said Anumita Roy Chowdhury, the executive director of the Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). “There are well laid out guidelines and rules on controlling emissions from industrial units. These have to be enforced.” Kalyan Rudra, the chairperson of the West Bengal Pollution Control Board, admitted that managing Howrah’s air quality was a challenge. “Howrah is a challenge. There are two important transport terminals there — Shalimar station and Howrah station. It is a very congested city with little green cover and open space. There is also a huge truck traffic. All these factors have made air quality management in Howrah challenging,” said Rudra. “We have prepared a graded response action plan (GRAP), which will bring in restrictions with the drop in air quality.” When asked if Howrah’s air quality worsened the air quality of Calcutta — the two cities are separated by the river Hooghly — Rudra said it was still too early to comment. “We have started research to understand how transboundary pollution affects Calcutta. It is still too early to say whether Howrah is impacting Calcutta,” Rudra said. Doctors said foul air weakens the natural defence of humans, making them vulnerable to infections. For people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma, the foul air can exacerbate symptoms and even lead to hospitalisation, said a doctor. Poor air quality can also lead to a resurgence of symptoms in people with allergic rhinitis, who were otherwise without any symptoms for several months. The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimated that “the combined effects of ambient air pollution and household air pollution are associated with 6.7 million premature deaths annually”. The six grades of air quality are good, satisfactory, moderate, poor, very poor and severe. Metro reported on Monday that Calcutta did not have a single day in January when the air quality was “good” or “satisfactory”. Howrah’s air quality report for January is far worse. The breakdown of the air quality in Howrah further revealed that Ghusuri had 13 “very poor” days and 13 “poor” days, while Padmapukur had one “severe” day, 16 “poor” days, 12 “very poor” days and one “moderate” day. “Severe” air quality “affects healthy people and seriously impacts those with existing diseases,” says the National Air Quality Index.

AP denies role in olive ridley deaths, NGT questions TN

Chennai: Andhra Pradesh has denied allegations that Nellore trawlers were responsible for olive ridley turtle carcasses washing ashore in Chennai. During a National Green Tribunal (NGT) hearing on Friday, it said turtle excluder devices (TEDs), installed in fishing nets to allow turtles to escape while retaining the catch, have been mandatory for trawlers in the state since 2010 and enforced through a tie-up with a US agency. Strict penalties, including catch seizure, are imposed on boats operating without TEDs or within five nautical miles of the shore. Taking note, NGT Southern Zone directed Tamil Nadu to consult experts from the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) to see if the AP model could be replicated along the Chennai coast to prevent further turtle deaths. It also questioned TN's enforcement failure, asking why trawlers cannot be restricted during the Jan-April turtle nesting season if TED rules remain unenforced. The state fisheries department was asked to submit a response and the matter posted for the next hearing on March 18. Last month, NGT, criticised TN for poor enforcement, noting that TEDs a low-cost and effective solution were not implemented properly. Earlier this week, TN govt detained four AP fishermen near Ennore thermal power station for operating trawlers without TEDs. During the inspection, a patrol team found 16 live olive ridleys beneath the catch in their nets.