The following resources may be of use to groups. Look all the way down the page as there is a comprehensive list of resources including videos. If you come across a very good resource link, please forward it to Mr. Wood so he can post.

RESOURCES PAGE:

READ: At this page teachers will post information and/or links that will help you find information relevant to your topic of study and the overall project aim -- Understand how humans are treating our planet badly and how that results in human health being effected. We are hopeful that we will find examples of how we are helping to improve our environment and the benefits that result in improved health of the human, animals and plants on Planet Earth.

GLOBAL HEALTH--GENERAL Everyone should read the first 5 items posted here:

1. Key messagesThe concept of planetary health is based on the understanding that human health and human civilisation depend on flourishing natural systems and the wise stewardship of those natural systems. However, natural systems are being degraded to an extent unprecedented in human history.

Environmental threats to human health and human civilisation will be characterised by surprise and uncertainty. Our societies face clear and potent dangers that require urgent and transformative actions to protect present and future generations.

The present systems of governance and organisation of human knowledge are inadequate to address the threats to planetary health. We call for improved governance to aid the integration of social, economic, and environmental policies and for the creation, synthesis, and application of interdisciplinary knowledge to strengthen planetary health.

Solutions lie within reach and should be based on the redefinition of prosperity to focus on the enhancement of quality of life and delivery of improved health for all, together with respect for the integrity of natural systems. This endeavour will necessitate that societies address the drivers of environmental change by promoting sustainable and equitable patterns of consumption, reducing population growth, and harnessing the power of technology for change.

2. Governance for planetary health and sustainable development, Written by former NZ Prime Minister, Helen Clark.

(emphasis added)

The landmark report of The Rockefeller Foundation–Lancet Commission on Planetary Health 1 is a clear and compelling articulation of the inextricable link between human health and environmental change. The report explores an array of complex, interlinked elements of concern, from environmental tipping points to the impacts of invasive species and the importance of protected areas. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) recognises planetary health as critical to achieving sustainable development across the economic, social, and environmental spheres—this ethos underpins our Strategic Plan for 2014–17.2

The Commission's report comes at an important time. It is released just before the UN General Assembly is due to adopt the post-2015 development agenda and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This is just one of four major global processes this year. Disaster risk reduction, financing for development, and climate change are also being tackled at major summits. Agreements in all these areas should encourage UN entities to “strengthen their collaborative mechanisms to ensure optimum coherence in tackling the threats to planetary health”, as The Rockefeller Foundation–Lancet Commission on Planetary Health notes.1 Indeed, decision making and accountability at international and national levels would be enhanced by following through on the recommendations of the Commission.

Implementing the Commission's comprehensive action framework to safeguard planetary and human health requires strengthening resilience and governance capacity. This objective is reflected in the proposed SDGs. Individual, community, and institutional strengths must be built on to prevent, mitigate the impacts of, and learn from shocks of any type—internal or external, natural or man-made, economic, health-related, political, or social. Strengthened resilience to such challenges needs improved governance capacities for implementing long-term, innovative, and multisectoral risk reduction. Public institutions will need to become more effective, accountable, and responsive to the needs of all, especially the poorest and most vulnerable.

The Commission highlights multiple influences on planetary and human health, many of which relate to governance, including international trade and domestic policies that have an adverse effect on human and environmental health. Whole of government approaches can build countries' capacity to participate effectively in bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations to advance social, economic, and environmental interests together.

Strong intersectoral governance helps policy makers understand how economic, social, and environmental policies jointly impact on health, and vice versa. Trade-related laws and policies, combined with domestic tax regimes and regulation, can serve to maintain access to quality, affordable health technologies, or disincentivise demand for alcohol, tobacco, refined sugars, and ultra-processed foods. As the Commission points out, these products harm the health of the planet and its people. Their production results in higher greenhouse gas emissions, land use change, and agrochemical pollution. There is a large opportunity for progress in this area. In 2013, only 3% of countries had taxes on high-fat foods.3 Conversely, the International Monetary Fund estimates that fossil fuel industry subsidies in 2015 amount to US$5·3 trillion.4

Another governance priority is to encourage the private sector to protect the environment and human health as part of doing business. Private sector enterprise and economic growth need not come at the cost of the environment and public health. UNDP's work to integrate HIV and gender-related issues into environmental impact assessments of large-scale capital projects in 14 countries in sub-Saharan Africa is an example of how economic and social objectives can be integrated into business design.5 Future work will address malaria prevention and control and non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Given the links between inequities, poor health, and development, making capital projects health-sensitive and ensuring that their benefits are accrued by all can advance inclusive economic growth and sustainable human development.

The recent outbreak of Ebola virus disease in west Africa, which the Commission cites as a powerful example of the immediate and alarming health impacts of environmental changes, is a powerful reminder of the weaknesses of siloed, sector-based governance. Strengthening systems for health and decentralised governance is essential to build resilient communities and prevent and mitigate the impact of health crises. Future responses to health and other crisis must invest more in supporting communities as agents for response and recovery, while engaging other sectors such as communications, banking, 6 and transport.

UNDP is playing its part in these endeavours. Since 2010, we have helped more than 150 countries to scale up climate change adaptation; manage ecosystems and biodiversity; improve water and oceans' governance; introduce affordable, accessible, and clean energy solutions; and manage chemicals and waste sustainably.7 In all of its work, UNDP believes that empowering communities to identify solutions and scale up local innovations is an effective way of supporting improved health and sustainable development. In Sudan, for example, UNDP is helping communities to address climate risks and food security. Incomes among the 20 000 beneficiaries in one initiative—more than half in women-headed households—have increased by 20%, helping to improve education and health outcomes and natural resource stewardship in their communities.8

The report of The Rockefeller Foundation–Lancet Commission on Planetary Health reminds us that sustainable development requires holistic approaches. Advancing social, economic, and environmental goals together—underpinned by resilient systems and improved governance—is at the heart of the proposed new SDGs and UNDP's work. Now is the time to act. The health of all people and our planet depends on that.

I am Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme. I declare no competing interests.

References

1. Whitmee, S, Haines, A, Beyrer, C et al. Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: report of The Rockefeller Foundation–Lancet Commission on planetary health. Lancet. 2015;(published online July 16.) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60901-1

2. UNDP. Changing with the world UNDP strategic plan: 2014–2017. United Nations Development Programme, New York; 2013

3. WHO. Global status report on non-communicable diseases 2014. World Health Organization,Geneva; 2014

4. Coady, D, Parry, I, Sears, L, and Shang, B. IMF working paper: how large are global energy subsidies?International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC; 2015

5. UNDP. Guidelines for integrating HIV and gender-related issues into environmental assessment in Eastern and Southern Africa. United Nations Development Programme, New York; 2013

6. UNDP. Payments programme for Ebola response workers: cash at the front lines of a health crisis, issue brief. United Nations Development Programme, New York; 2015

7. UNDP. Environmental finance. http://www..undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ourwork/sustainable-development/natural-capital-and-the-environment/environmental-finance/; 2015. ((accessed July 7, 2015).)

8. UNDP and Government of Sudan. Report of the mid-term evaluation of the Sudan NAPA follow-up project: implementing NAPA priority interventions to build resilience in the agriculture and water sectors to the adverse impacts of climate change in Sudan, Khartoum. United Nations Development Programme, New York; 2

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)61205-3

3. Nature's bounties: reliance on pollinators for health. Gretchen C Daily, Daniel S Karp

Published Online: 15 July 2015 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)61244-2 © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Human demands and impacts on the Earth's life-support systems are at an all-time high. With the sixth mass extinction,1 climate change,2 and other major anthropogenic disturbances underway, understanding the wide range of vital benefits that societies derive from nature has become a global priority. A key research frontier is in characterising and valuing these ecosystem services systematically to inform investments in conservation of service-providing species and their habitats. Worldwide, about 75% of leading crops have improved yield and quality thanks to pollination by animals,3 primarily bees followed by a plethora of wild insects, and in some cases birds and bats. And the foods they pollinate are nutrient-rich fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds, for which dietary deficiency confers risk of non-communicable diseases, including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and lung cancer. Altogether, 35% of global food volume derives from animal pollinated crops.3 Yet pollinators are in rapid decline globally, probably in response to interacting pressures from pests, pathogens, agrochemicals, and loss of habitats and flowers, as well as erosion of genetic diversity in honey bees.4 Beyond the substantial economic effect—about €153 billion in 20055—pollinator decline could hurt human health. Animal-pollinated crops are among the richest in micronutrients; globally, areas with high micronutrient deficiency are disproportionally reliant on animal-pollinated crops.6 Pollinator declines could thus precipitate micronutrient deficiencies as well as other human health concerns.7

In The Lancet, Matthew Smith and colleagues8 quantify the global nutritional and health implications of declines in crop pollinators and decreased intake of pollinator-dependent foods for populations around the world. They compiled data on diets and on the production, nutrient composition, and pollinator dependence of 224 types of food across 156 countries. They then modelled how human health would be affected by the collapse of pollinators, under simple but clear assumptions of change that, in reality, would unfold in highly variable and unpredictable ways. They investigate 50%, 75%, and 100% losses of pollinator-dependent crops, and, in each case, assume replacement with the same caloric values from staple foods such as cereals, roots, and tubers. Overall, their modelling analysis provides a powerful assessment of the global importance of pollinators to human health. The investigators estimated that total pollinator collapse would cause new deficiency in vitamin A for 71 million (95% uncertainty interval 41–262) people and in folate for 173 million (134–225) people, and would exacerbate current deficiency in 2·2 billion (1·2–2·5) and 1·2 billion (1·1–1·3) people, respectively. Pollinator collapse would also increase global deaths from non-communicable and malnutrition-related diseases by 1·42 million (1·38–1·48) and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYS) by 27·0 million (25·8–29·1). The 50% and 75% losses affect health roughly proportionally less than those for total loss—a 50% loss of pollination services would be associated with 700 000 additional annual deaths and 13·2 million DALYs.

Although recent investigations have laid essential groundwork, this is the first study to fully link global declines in animal pollinators to human health. Most previous quantification of the importance of ecosystem services (or consequences of their decline) has focused on biophysical or economic measures, initially at a local level. The link to health is a widely recognised frontier for research.9 Smith and colleagues' findings lend new urgency to the issue of pollinator declines globally. Yet, their finding that most pollinator-dependent crops contributing to human health are produced and consumed locally rather than imported is also important, since it shows a need for improved local and national pollinator management to avert health consequences.

Smith and colleagues developed an approach to linking nature and health that could be adapted and extended to other ecosystem services in at least three key dimensions. First, as this study shows, enough is known about some ecosystem services—such as wild seafood production, water purification for drinking, global climate stabilisation—to quantify the human health implications of changes in their supply. For example, natural predators of crop pests can improve yields and profits. But can bolstering predator populations reduce pests to the degree necessary to forego use of harmful agrochemicals that degrade human health?10, 11 Second, new theories could be advanced and tested to distinguish contexts in which conserving nature improves rather than threatens human health. For example, further understanding is needed to predict when conserving intact, biodiverse ecosystems mitigates12 or increases13 zoonotic disease transmission. Finally, so many subtle yet important connections exist between people and nature that many remain virtually unexplored in terms of human health. For example, there is emerging evidence that experiencing nature by urban residents could improve cognitive function and mental health in various ways.14

The research frontier advanced by Smith and colleagues is part of a revolution underway to illuminate and secure the values of natural systems not only by cultivating awareness and deeper understanding of the vital benefits of nature, but also by moving from knowledge to action. A decade or so ago, New York City invested in farming, forestry, and other practices upstream in the Catskills Mountains to secure its drinking water.9 Costa Rica led the world in implementing a national payment system to reward forest conservation for domestic benefits to hydropower and tourism and global benefits of climate stability and biodiversity.9 Today, China is implementing an ambitious system of land zoning to target conservation investments in the places that will deliver highest returns to society, paying 200 million people to restore ecosystems.9 In some ways, this revolution parallels that launched by Carl Linnaeus in the 18th century. Moving from local descriptions of organisms that could not readily be shared at a higher level, he took a global view, inventing the systems used today for characterising organisms and their relations, and for communicating universally about life. Now, the frontier is moving from local descriptions of the intimate connections between people and nature to cast light on their global importance, and on the pioneering policies and governance systems—at local, national, and global scales—that will help secure the wellbeing of both people and the planet's natural systems in the future.9 We declare no competing interests.

References

1. Ceballos, G, Ehrlich, PR, Barnosky, AD, García, A, Pringle, RM, and Palmer, TM. Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: entering the sixth mass extinction. Sci Adv. 2015; 1: e140025

2. Watts, N, Adger, WN, Agnolucci, P et al. Health and climate change: policy responses to protect public health. Lancet. 2015; (published online June 23.)http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60854-6.

3. Klein, A-M, Vaissière, BE, Cane, JH et al. Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc Biol Sci. 2007; 274: 303–313

4. Potts, SG, Biesmeijer, JC, Kremen, C, Neumann, P, Schweiger, O, and Kunin, WE. Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol Evol. 2010; 25: 345–353

5. Gallai, N, Salles, J-M, Settele, J, and Vaissière, BE. Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline. Ecol Econ. 2009; 68: 810–821

6. Chaplin-Kramer, R, Dombeck, E, Gerber, J et al. Global malnutrition overlaps with pollinator-dependent micronutrient production.. Proc Biol Sci. 2014; 281: 1799

7. Ellis, AM, Myers, SS, and Ricketts, TH. Do pollinators contribute to nutritional health?. PLoS One. 2015; 10: e114805

8. Smith, MR, Singh, GM, Mozaffarian, D, and Myers, SS. Effects of decreases of animal pollinators on human nutrition and global health: a modelling analysis. Lancet. 2015; (published online July 16.)http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)61085-6.

9. Guerry, A, Polasky, S, Lubchenco, J et al. Natural capital informing decisions: from promise to practice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015; 112: 7348–7355

10. Marks, AR, Harley, K, Bradman, A et al. Organophosphate pesticide exposure and attention in young Mexican-American children: the CHAMACOS study. Environ Health Perspect. 2010; 118: 1768–1774

11. Ponisio, LC, M'Gonigle, LK, Mace, KC, Palomino, J, de Valpine, P, and Kremen, C. Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap. Proc Biol Sci. 2015; 282: 1396

12. Keesing, F, Belden, LK, Daszak, P et al. Impacts of biodiversity on the emergence and transmission of infectious diseases. Nature. 2010; 468: 647–652

13. Wood, CL, Lafferty, KD, DeLeo, G, Young, HS, Hudson, PJ, and Kuris, AM. Does biodiversity protect humans against infectious disease?. Ecology. 2014; 95: 817–832

14. Bratman, GN, Hamilton, JP, and Daily, GC. The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2012; 1249: 118–136

4. United Nations Goals to help reclaim a healthy Earth

5. Children bear the brunt of the failure of governments to address environmental threats: according to WHO, 36% of all childhood deaths globally are attributable to environmental causes and 43% of the total environmental burden of disease falls upon children younger than 5 years. The solution to this problem is the integration of social and environmental policies centred on the protection and nurturing of the developing child.

There is mounting interest in understanding the contribution of environmental contaminants because by definition these are preventable once identified. A growing wave of longitudinal studies of pregnant women and children points to the fetal developmental window and early childhood as particularly susceptible to the multiple adverse effects of toxic exposures, stress, and nutritional deficits. There are now many examples of the fetus, infant, and young child being affected by low levels of environmental toxicants, inadequate nutrition, and stress that have no apparent effects in adults. (Reference: Landrigan Philip J, Etzel Ruth A, Textbook of Children's Environmental Health Oxford University Press, 2014)

6. The following video is about 5 minutes long. At the end the artist suggests you go to another site--in other words an advertisement--but the message is worth the watch.

If we don’t stop the destruction of the world’s forests we will not be able to combat climate change. Only through the collective actions of us all will we have a future full of forests and a planet that is full of harmony. Prince EA has outdone himself yet again with this amazing video that helps put things into perspective. Planet earth is 4.5 billion years old. Mankind has been here for around 140,000 years. So if you condensed the earth’s life span into 24 hours then humans have been here for just 3 seconds … And in that 3 seconds we have managed to destroy more than 50% of the world’s forests and have already caused the extinction of hundreds maybe even thousands of different species of animals. How much longer can we continue this way. Will we even make it to 4 seconds?

http://educateinspirechange.org/nature/everyone-needs-to-watch-this-video-before-its-too-late-for-our-planet-man-vs-earth/

7. Climate change and food security:

One planet, one map, different scenarios. With this Food Insecurity and Climate Change Vulnerability Index, you can explore how different scenarios of global greenhouse gas emissions affect food security: https://lnkd.in/dBJ9iNR

8.Climate change and pollution.

There is a growing collection of video investigations accessible from the following link: http://www.aljazeera.com/topics/issues/climate-change.html

SCROLL DOWN TO FIND YOUR GROUP'S TOPIC

GENERAL

(1) http://www.horizons.govt.nz/managing-environment/resource-management/

(2) http://therevolutionmovie.com/index.php/open-your-eyes/

HUMAN HEALTH IMPACT:

(1) http://www.healthypeople.gov

AIR POLLUTION

Lowering China’s pollution could prevent about 900,000 cardiovascular deaths by 2030

30/10/2015 20:32 GMT - American Heart Association - Under embargo until 10/11/2015 21:00 GMT

Air pollution is a leading cardiovascular disease risk factor in Beijing and urban China. Lowering air pollution to the level it was during the 2008 Beijing Olympics could prevent about 900,000 cardiovascular deaths and gain millions of life years in urban China by 2030, according to a study presented at the American Heart Association’s Scientific Sessions 2015. http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=157918&CultureCode=en

(1) http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-11-12/india/43979609_1_lung-cancer-air-pollution-diesel-smoke

(2) http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Community-and-environment/Environmental-management/How-you-can-make-a-difference/Motor-vehicle-pollution.aspx

(3) http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Community-and-environment/Environmental-management/How-you-can-make-a-difference/How-you-can-help.aspx

(4) http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/pollution-overview/

(5) https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/what-are-main-sources-urban-air-pollution

(6) http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/101east/ (go to "Where there is Smoke")

(7) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1SgmFa0r04

(8) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35333076

CHEMICAL POLLUTION

(1) http://marinebio.org/oceans/conservation/moyle/ch11.asp

(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8HEbPUzdiE

CORAL REEF DESTRUCTION

(1) http://marinebio.org/oceans/conservation/moyle/ch11.asp

(2) What will be the fate of the Great Barrier Reef? http://geographical.co.uk/nature/oceans/item/950-what-will-be-the-fate-of-the-great-barrier-reef

(3) Coral Reef bleaching: http://geographical.co.uk/nature/oceans/item/814-coral-reefs-face-bleaching-events-on-a-global-scale

DEFORESTATION -- TEMPERATE FORESTS

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRuQLcul6TU

(2) http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/12/keep-forests-standing-people-p-2014121063013845949.html

(3) http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2010/03/2010325154255778795.html

DEFORESTATION -- TROPICAL FORESTS

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRuQLcul6TU

(2) http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/101east/ (Go to "Where there is Smoke")

(3) http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/12/keep-forests-standing-people-p-2014121063013845949.html

(4) http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2010/03/2010325154255778795.html

(5) Lots of information at this site: http://news.mongabay.com/2016/01/whats-ahead-for-rainforests-in-2016-10-things-to-watch/

(6) Deforestation causing Sao Paolo's drought: http://geographical.co.uk/places/cities/item/761-deforestation-behind-sao-paulo-drought

GLOBAL WARMING

(1)http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/29/business/media/29adco.html? _r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1188396179-9kt3o2Nvm4rWVylP%2FtihgQ&

(2) http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/News/2006/1000448/index.htm1

(3) http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsID=20772#.VB3qofldU0R

(4) http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/pollution-overview/

(5) http://bigpicture.unfccc.int -- this link has the most up to date information from the latest UN meeting on Climate Change

(6) One planet, one map, different scenarios. With this Food Insecurity and Climate Change Vulnerability Index, you can explore how different scenarios of global greenhouse gas emissions affect food security: https://lnkd.in/dBJ9iNR

(7) http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)01289-1/

(Note: The URL above is a quick summary from the United Nations Paris Climate Change Forum)

(8) http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/

(9) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_WWXGGWZBE

LIGHT POLLUTION

(1) http://www.lightpollutionmap.info/#zoom=8&lat=-4560231.52157&lon=19556976.95037&layers=B0TFFFFTT

(2) http://www.slideshare.net/JariLyytimaki/dark-side-of-light-reducing-light-pollution-for-an-ecofriendly-society?qid=85382c35-cef8-422a-8cda-308ce7e0c76c&v=qf1&b=&from_search=9

OVERFISHING

)1) https://www.google.co.nz/url sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwjN87njsq_JAhXiLqYKHQ42AREQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftherevolutionmovie.com%2Findex.php%2Fopen-your-eyes%2Foverfishing%2Fimpacts%2F&psig=AFQjCNGPYkZri4bw-523h6gtbOGpvM1KvA&ust=1448671868498362

OVERGRAZING

(1) http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/meat-environment/

(2) http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/News/2006/1000448/index.htm1

(3) http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsID=20772#.VB3qofldU0R

(4) http://mishkahenner.com/filter/works/Feedlots

(5)http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/29/business/media/29adco.html? _r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1188396179-9kt3o2Nvm4rWVylP%2FtihgQ&

(6) http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/meat-environment/ (http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/meat-environment/)

(7) http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/News/2006/1000448/index.html

(8) http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsID=20772#.VB3qofldU0R

(9) http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/unbelievable-photos-show-factory-farms- destroying-the-american-countryside/

(10) http://mishkahenner.com/filter/works/Feedlots (http://mishkahenner.com/filter/works/Feedlots)

PESTICIDE POLLUTION

(1) http://marinebio.org/oceans/conservation/moyle/ch11.asp

PLASTIC POLLUTION

(1) http://www.slideshare.net/biotechvictor1950/plastic-impacts-on-the-natural-environment?qid=c59f6f7c-f201-4c02-8cc4-6505e1881b9b&v=qf1&b=&from_search=5

(2) https://youtu.be/ZHCgA-n5wRw

(3) http://www.plasticpollutioncoalition.org/pft/2015/12/29/trash-free-marylands-year-in-review-1

(4) 5gyres.org

(5) http://www.trueactivist.com/this-zero-waste-grocery-store-has-no-packaging-plastic-or-big-name-brands/

(6) http://green-plastics.net/posts/45/plastic-biodegradation-in-landfills/

(7) http://ecowatch.com/2014/04/07/22-facts-plastic-pollution-10-things-can-do-about-it/

(8) Microbeads --http://ow.ly/WTgMj

(9) Emily Penn's research on plastic pollution in our oceans: www.discoverconservation.org/emily-penn-marine-plastic-pollution/

(10) http://jakarta.coconuts.co/2016/01/11/jakarta-and-16-other-cities-will-force-consumers-pay-plastic-bags-starting-next-month

(11) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zrn4-FfbXw (4 minutes)

RADIATION POLLUTION

(1) http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Radiation-and-Health/Radiation-and-Life/

(2) http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/understand/health_effects.htm

SEA LEVEL RISE

(1) http://www.slideshare.net/gregbriner/sea-level-rise-and-disappearing-islands-myth-or-reality-3219764?related=1

(2) http://ecowatch.com/2013/10/29/high-will-seas-rise/

SOIL POLLUTION

(1) http://mishkahenner.com/filter/works/Feedlots

(2) http://marinebio.org/oceans/conservation/moyle/ch11.asp

(3) http://mishkahenner.com/filter/works/Feedlots

SOUND/NOISE POLLUTION

(1) http://www.slideshare.net/YogeshPande1/sound-pollution

(2) http://www.slideshare.net/gauravhtandon1/noise-pollution-29887197?next_slideshow=1

VISUAL POLLUTION

(1) http://www.slideshare.net/katherinecassandranucup/visual-pollution-prevention?next_slideshow=1

WATER POLLUTION -- FRESH WATER

(1) http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/News/2006/1000448/index.htm1

(2) http://mishkahenner.com/filter/works/Feedlots

(3) http://www.charitywater.org/

(4) http://www.projectaware.org/

(5) http://www.dropinthebucket.org/

(6) http://www.nrdc.org/water/(7) http://eschooltoday.com/pollution/water-pollution/causes-of-water-pollution.html(8) (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/toxics/water/Water-Warrior/)

(9) http://marinebio.org/oceans/conservation/moyle/ch11.asp

(10) http://water.unl.edu/lakes

learning tool -- visit/perhaps add to your Freshwater Wiki: https://www.biodiversity.govt.nz/kids/index.html

WATER POLLUTION -- SALT WATER

(1) http://marinebio.org/oceans/conservation/moyle/ch11.asp

(2) Maritime expert warning: is global plastic pollution killing us? http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/fife/maritime-expert-s-warning-is-global-plastic-pollution-killing-us-1.909456

(4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zrn4-FfbXw

----------

Paris Climate Agreement: summary of the key points agreed

Philip Lee

URL: http://www.lexology.com/contributors/26569/

Global January 14 2016

Read our very useful summary of the key points agreed upon at the recent Paris Summit including the main positive and negative outcomes.

Overview

1. Article 2 -1.5C Limit: Governments have agreed to ‘pursue efforts’ to limit warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. This will be done in a context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.

​a. Issue: this is very positive as it is a significant drop in the 2C agreed at Copenhagen. However, there are no measures in place to achieve the 1.5C aspiration.

2. Throughout the Paris Text – Mitigation: Parties are bound to prepare and regularly update pledges to curb emissions.

a. Issue: 180 countries had submitted INDCs (intended nationally determined contributions). INDCS are recognised under the agreement, but are not legally binding. The pledges submitted are not sufficient to curb 2C rise. Currently the INDCs will lead to a 2.7C rise or higher.

b.These emissions are expected to be reduced over time. The decision text “invites” countries to write long-term low-emissions strategies by 2020, while the legal agreement says they should “strive” to do this.

c.Issue also with transparency (see below) on national implementation which aims to be “facilitative, non-intransitive and non-punitive” and respectful of national sovereignty.

3. Article 4 – Global Goal: Aim to peak in emissions as soon as possible and a long term global goal for net zero emissions in the second half of the century.

1. Countries can use ‘sinks’ such as forests to do this.

2. Developed countries will take the lead but developing are also required to eventually move to emissions peaking and reduction.

3. The global goal will be reached on the basis of equity and in a context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.

4. Issue: UN IPCC say net zero emissions must be achieved by 2070 to avoid dangerous warming.

4. Article 14 – Stocktake clause: Introduction of a review mechanism to take stock of country efforts every five years. This will inform the efforts of future commitments and aims to increase pledges. Each pledge must be ‘a progression’ and ‘as ambitious as possible’

a.Facilitative dialogue to develop these pledges will begin in 2018. These will inform efforts of future commitments.

b.Countries which have submitted targets for 2025 are urged to come back in 2020 with new targets, while those with 2030 targets are encourages to ‘communicate or update’ them. This process will be repeated every five years, with the first global stocktake under the new Paris deal occurring in 2023.

c.Issue: There is no penalty for countries that miss their emissions targets, but the aim is for transparency rules to encourage countries to do what they say they will do.

5. Article 8 – Loss and Damage Mechanism: Introduction of a mechanism to recognise and address the financial losses vulnerable countries face from climate change. This article is now on par with political statements of mitigation and adaptation.

a. Issue: The US long opposed this as they feared it would lead to compensation claims. To stop this a footnote clause was introduced to state that loss and damage “does not involve or provide basis for any liability or compensation”

6. Article 9 – Finance: Legal obligation on developed countries to continue to provide climate finance to help developing countries adapt to climate change and transition to clean energy. Other countries can provide support voluntarily.

a. More flexible decision texts (outside the legally binding agreement) state that the current flow of $100bn a year is ‘intend[ed] to continue’ beyond 2020. By 2025 there are aims to increase this beyond ‘a floor’ of €100billion a year through a collective agreement.

b.The nature and purpose of this finance isn’t clear, this leaves space for it to be fulfilled by private finance. There are worries that finance will be redirected from existing aid budgets.

7. Article 13 – Transparency: A “facilitative, non-intransitive and non-punitive” system of review will track countries progress. a.Issue: The rules on reporting are flexible, there is recognition of the difficulties developing countries face in gathering this information, however, all countries must report regularly. This is especially important for the US and EU who want to keep an eye on China and avoid ‘carbon leakage’.

8. Article 7 – Adaptation: The deal establishes a “global goal” on adaptation of “enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience and reducing vulnerability to climate change”. Countries are bound to engage in adaptation planning that must be submitted and updated periodically.

9. Article 22 – Entry into Force: The deal will enter into force once 55 parties, covering 55% of global emissions have signed up.

Negotiations for the Paris agreement were particularly tense as it had to be carefully crafted to avoid specification as a treaty which would require approval from two-thirds of the US Senate. The Senate is currently dominated by Republicans hostile to action on climate.

The former Kyoto Protocol focused on ensuring legally binding emissions reductions from developed countries alone. This led to the US refusal to take part, a significant loss for the Protocol. For the Paris agreement, the US was adamant that the climate agreement be universal in securing voluntary commitments from every country.

Positives:

• Universal adoption. UN has 193 members, 195 countries accepted the agreement.

• Unmistakeable intention of the international community to end reliance on fossil-fuels shown by a long-term emissions reduction goal of zero emissions by the second half of this century. This will affect global investment patterns and shift funding from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources.

• Five year review cycle of all INDCS – it’s been 20 years since the last targets were set in Kyoto.

• Measures to ensure transparency – these ensure it’s tougher to manipulate data and will ensure all players feel they have to look over their shoulder – there are no outliers.

• Creates a vision statement for the globe. Creates a new, universal vocabulary with bold objectives that will influence international relations and, therefore, domestic actions.

Negatives

• Current INDCs mean a 2.7C rise in global temperatures.

• “Strategic ambiguity” of the text means it’s largely not legally binding. The text walks a fine line, binding in some elements like reporting requirement but setting emissions targets for individual country is non-binding

• Little enforcement – e.g. the “mechanism to facilitate implementation and compliance” (Article 15) specifically says that it will be “non-adversarial and non-punitive”.

• Very vague – We need plans as to HOW we will move to zero emissions and an enforceable roadmap to get there. There is no set date for a peak in emissions, or for the achievement of carbon neutrality. These targets are binding at global level but there is nothing binding for countries involved.

• Although there is an important “no-backsliding clause” that obliges all countries to do progressively better, ensuring that planned stocktake and reviews are implemented will be key to securing the needed ambition and commitments.

Credibility of the INDCs – Particular focus on the G20

In terms of the INDCs, it is now well known that they will exceed the required 1.5C rise in temperatures. What is little discussed is whether the named INDCs will be implemented or not to begin with. A recent Grantham Institute Policy Paper __‘Beyond the Targets’__ has assessed the credibility of the signatories in terms of their ability to implement their given INDCs. The key determinants of national policy credibility used in the study are:

• coherent and comprehensive legislative and policy basis

• a transparent, inclusive and effective decision-making process with sufficient political constraints to limit policy reversal

• dedicated public bodies supported by a consultative mechanisms

• supportive private bodies

• a history of active international engagement on environmental issues

• climate-aware public opinion

• a track record of delivering on past climate change commitments and no history of policy abolition.

In terms of having credible climate policy sufficiently strong to implement INDCs the analysis identifies three groups of countries among the G20:

1. For a number of countries most determinants score as ‘largely supportive’ to the credibility of their INDC. These countries include the EU and its individual G20 members (France, Germany, Italy and the UK), as well as South Korea.

2. Several countries have several determinants which are at least ‘moderately supportive’ to the credibility of their INDC, but display a significant weakness in one determinant. This group includes Australia, Brazil, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Turkey, South Africa and the USA.

3. A number of countries have scope for significantly increasing credibility across most determinants. These are Argentina, Canada, China, India, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. The analysis presented in this paper provides insights on where the G20 countries could focus action to boost the credibility of their INDCs. It will also be useful for other developed and developing countries, most of which, while having unique national circumstances, will need to strengthen the credibility of their INDCs to a greater or lesser extent along the main determinants identified in this paper.