The Chinese government announced this on the back of record investment in renewable technology in 2010 overtaking the U.S. for the first time in 2010 with an astounding $54.4Bn being invested in the renewable sector. This compares with the US at $34Bn and the UK about a tenth of that at $3.3Bn. $54.8Bn equates to about 56,000MW of installed hydro power, 44,000MW of installed wind capacity and 800MW of installed solar power. The BBC reported that a total of $211Bn was invested globally last year with a 32% growth rate in the renewable sector. Using my back of the envelope calculation, this equates to the renewable market doubling every two-and-a-bit years, a formidable growth.

China, it would seem, is a good place to invest in renewable technology. So good in fact, that back in June of this year the World Bank awarded China and seven other countries grants to be used directly in organising, implementing and developing climate change mitigation technologies.

This all sounds very promising but, as with nearly every bit of good news, there is an important addendum which highlights a more subdued reality. Last year China emitted 7.7Bn tonnes of carbon equivalent which is a 13.3% increase on last year’s total. Since 2000 China’s CO2 emissions have risen by 170.6% and have been closely related to the country’s Gross Domestic Product growth. This is why the huge investment in renewable technologies is so important, as it is the only way to break the link between carbon emissions and GDP growth. In a world where GDP growth is king, the Chinese government could be showing the way in sustainable energy production and low carbon emissions.

The coming few years are going to be very interesting.

Oil exploration and production has been conducted in the Niger Delta since the 1950s but many of the operations have been suspended since the early 1990s because of local unrest, and “the oil fields and installations of the region known as Ogoniland have been dormant,” the United Nations reports.

“In that period there has been only partial efforts to remedy the contamination from oil production, and further spills as a result of a lack of maintenance, oil tapping and damage to infrastructure have occurred in the past 15 years.”

The World’s Most Wide-Ranging Oil Clean-UP Exercise

The UN Environment Program (UNEP) launched on the end of November 2009, an assessment of the impact of contamination from oil across the Ogoni region of the Niger Delta in Nigeria.

Now the UN concludes that the environmental restoration of Ogoniland oil region “could prove to be the world’s most wide-ranging and long-term oil clean-up exercise ever, if contaminated drinking water, land, creeks and other ecosystems are to be brought back to full health.”

“It could take 25 to 30 years, with an initial investment of 1 billion dollars just for the first five years, to clean up pollution from more than 50 years of oil operations in the Niger Delta, ranging from the “disastrous” impact on mangrove vegetation to the contamination of wells with potentially cancer- causing chemicals in a region that is home to some 1 million people,” informed the UN on August 6th, 2011.

Contamination Greater Than Thought

The UNEP scientific assessment showed “greater and deeper pollution than previously thought after an agency team examined more than 200 locations, surveyed 122 kilometres of pipeline rights of way, analysed 4,000 soil and water samples, reviewed more than 5,000 medical records and engaged over 23,000 people at local community meetings.”

“It is UNEP’s hope that the findings can break the decades of deadlock in the region and provide the foundation upon which trust can be built and action undertaken to remedy the multiple health and sustainable development issues facing people in Ogoniland,” UNEP Executive Director, Achim Steiner said of the report, which was presented to Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan in Abuja.

“In addition it offers a blueprint for how the oil industry, and public regulatory authorities, might operate more responsibly in Africa and beyond at a time of increasing production and exploration across many parts of the continent.”

Oil Industry And Government, To Pay One Billion Dollars

The report, Environmental Assessment of Ogoniland, proposed the establishment of an Ogoniland Environmental Restoration Authority as soon as possible, with an initial capital injection of 1 billion dollars “from the oil industry and the government to cover the first five years of the clean-up project;” and a soil management centre with hundreds of mini-centres to treat contaminated soil and provide hundreds of job opportunities.

It also recommended setting up a centre to promote learning and benefit other communities impacted by oil contamination in the Niger Delta and elsewhere in the world.

Areas Severely Contaminated Underground

The study found that some areas, which appear unaffected at the surface, are in reality severely contaminated underground, and action to protect human health and reduce should be taken without delay. In at least 10 communities where drinking water is contaminated with high levels of hydrocarbons, public health is seriously threatened.

Disastrous Impact On Nature

The report noted that the impact of oil on mangrove vegetation had been “disastrous”, with many inter-tidal creeks where mangroves that serve as nurseries for fish and natural pollution filters denuded of leaves and stems, the roots coated in layers of a bitumen-type substance.

Meanwhile, Ogoni communities are exposed to hydrocarbons every day through multiple routes.

While the impact of individual contaminated land sites tends to be localised, air pollution related to oil industry operations is pervasive and affecting the quality of life of close to 1 million people.

UNEP has emphasised that the study, which began in late 2009, is independent and its funding by the Shell Petroleum Development Company is in keeping with the polluter-pays principle.

Taina, a Vancouver-based environmentalist and blogger, has taken on a challenge most of us would find daunting: living for a year without any plastics. She started in January, so May marks the fifth month into the project. Every few days, she updates her online followers with her challenges, successes, and angry (though justified) plastic-rants on her blog Plastic Manners.

Taina cites many reasons why she’s decided to tackle this particular issue. Basically, our society is in denial about both the pervasiveness and the dangers of plastic. First, many plastics leach toxic, carcinogenic chemicals that are dangerous to our health. Bisphenol-A, PVC, and phthalates are only three examples. Furthermore, plastic is polluting the oceans, and have been found in enormous amounts in the bodies of animals like whales, clams and albatrosses. Single-use plastics, such as straws, spoons, water bottles, bags and coffee cups are the worst offenders and the greatest source of plastic pollution.

Finally, recycling is not the answer. Not all plastics are recyclable, and those plastics that are not will be on this earth forever. If they are recyclable, they are usually “downcycled”. This means that they usually cannot be made into the same product. They have to be made into something smaller or of lesser quality. A little is always lost at every step. Recycled plastics can also break down into toxic byproducts. Not to mention, recyclable plastics do not guarantee that they will, in fact, be recycled.

I was lucky enough to ask Taina a few questions about her project and she was kind enough to let me share her story with you:

Q: What pieces of advice can you give to people who want to use less plastic?

A: I think it all has to start with a recognition of the problem- an awareness of how ridiculous our throw away habits have become. Take a granola bar. Great snack that you enjoy for maybe one minute, but the plastic packaging around it last FOREVER in our environment. An unpackaged treat (homemade), without the pollution and guilt, would be way more rewarding, guaranteed.   

Second, once you have really internalized the “dilemma”, then start refusing. On behalf of future generations/Earth/the Oceans, say NO THANKS! Refuse one item at a time – a straw, a bag, a coffee cup, a lid— until it becomes second nature and starts to apply to a wider range of things. And there are so many little convenience things that are easy as pie to give up right away without major changes to lifestyle. The bigger changes will come, when you are armed with awareness and quick refusal instincts. 

Q: What’s the most important thing you’ve learned so far in the project?

A: Hmm… I have two thoughts:

“Debbie Downer” would say: how catastrophic plastic pollution really is, and how important it is for us to act now. 

The optimistic part of me says: how easy it is to give up plastic, and how absolutely rewarding it is to go back to the roots, and make your own stuff. Convenience is not what makes life colourful.

Q: What are you most missing that you can’t find an alternative for? What alternatives do you wish existed that don’t?

A: Beer is one item that I wish existed readily without the plastic- caps on the bottles, lining inside cans. I will be making my own very soon.

Health products are hard to find without plastic- be it Advil or birth control pills. And other natural products (e.g. plastic-free toothbrushes) that are always wrapped in plastic. Same with plastic-free mascara (although someone recently gave me a tip on how to make my own).

On the alternatives front, I’ve come to realize how little you actually do need.  People always ask me about alternatives, and my list of essentials is actually not that big. You can simply live with less and be totally happy. Back to the store-bought granola bar, I totally don’t miss things like that; it is simply out of habit that we feel like we need all these convenient things.

Q: There seem to be two conflicting issues when it comes to this project. Some healthy, local, organic products come in plastic, whereas their non-plastic alternatives are either slightly less healthy, or come from far away. How do you balance these two issues?

A: I’m constantly battling with this one- so this answer will be rambly. It goes case-by-case:

When it comes to natural products wrapped in plastic, I simply say “no way!”. If it were really green, it wouldn’t have the offending substance around it. Those companies will not be getting my money. There are always better options out there- and if the stores and/or creativity fail you, then you just give it up all together. No biggie.

When it comes to things like the soap nuts [natural nuts that can be used instead of laundry and dish soap], I always land on the side of the nuts versus a plastic-wrapped detergent. This is because plastic has a huge footprint. First, the manufacturing of it from petroleum is ridiculous.  As is its shipping from wherever it was made. And then the waste; the biggest thing for me is that the plastic will never go away. If I do my own lifecycle analysis comparing the two products, intuitively the nuts would always win, even if they are shipped too.  Now, there may be a better, local, alternative to the nuts- like a baking soda that was made here.  I use that too. 

(I could go on forever about cleaning products. Most people feel that they need so many different types of products, because that is what industry has wanted to sell us. Literally, you could use baking soda and/or soap nuts to do your whole house, clothes, and dishes. And the benefit is that you, your kids, and your pets won’t be suffering from all those chemicals. And what about things like the stain repellents on clothing? Is the lack of a spot really worth our health?)

When it comes to health versus plastic, health wins in most cases (as long as “health” does not mean unnecessary “green” alternatives). For example, I will buy medicine when needed. And I buy organic vegetables and produced now, even with the stupid plastic sticker, if no other option is available. This is because the pesticides have a huge impact too, both on the Earth and me. And at least the sticker is small, and I am supporting a greater cause by putting my money to organics. But again, with a little planning, I don’t have to shop in those places that over-sticker their products.

I guess on the whole, it is a balancing act. Everything we do has an impact. The question is, what is an acceptable impact for you personally?

Q: Have you encountered any people who do not support your project? How do you deal with any criticism?

A: On the whole, people are super stoked.  I don’t think anyone wakes up and looks forward to consuming plastic and polluting, so they are happy to know that life without it is possible. It is interesting how little it takes for their own awareness to kick in. The only negativity I have received so far came from the Styrofoam-interest association. It figures.

Taina’s awesome blog contains frequent updates, as well as information about the dangers of plastics and links to other plastic-free activists. Check it out yourself at http://plasticmanners.wordpress.com/

Regardless of whether or not you smoke, drink, eat right or exercise, environmental toxins are inescapable. It’s a sad truth that comes with living in our modern world. Just to name a few sources, toxins are found in pollution, pesticides in food, and chemicals in plastics and cosmetics. It’s important to remember that people are part of the environment, not separate from it. Whatever toxins harm and pollute the earth have the potential to harm and pollute us.

An internal cleanse (or “detox”) is a natural, healthy way to gently rid the body of some of the dangerous environmental toxins stored in its cells. Historically, many cultures embraced cleansing as part of a healthy lifestyle, including ancient Chinese medicine and saunas. The human body naturally cleanses itself, yet it becomes overwhelmed by new environmental toxins that it did not have to deal with generations ago. Therefore, cleansing is increasingly important due to the vast increase in chemicals in our society.

Today, popular cleansing programs come in a wide variety of forms, including supplement packages, blends of tea, and smoothie mixes, and usually last for one or two weeks. After all the heavy, comfort food from winter (not to mention getting ready for swimsuit season) spring is the perfect time for a whole body cleanse.

Cleansing Benefits

Everyone is different, and will experience slightly different benefits. Some of the benefits of detoxing are:

• Increased energy
• Better sleep
• Improved digestion
• Reduced allergies
• You may even shed a few pounds in the process!

Please note: cleanses are not for everyone. If you are pregnant or breastfeeding, have any serious health issues, or are taking any medications, speak to your doctor before cleansing.

What cleanse is right for me?

When choosing a cleanse, it’s important to choose one that’s right for you, and that you know you’ll be able to commit to for the entire time period. Generally, the longer the cleanse, the more it will do. One-week cleanses usually only address water soluble toxins, whereas two-week cleanses are able to tackle the more important fat soluble toxins (toxins that are trapped in fat cells).

However, popular starvation cleanses (though heavily promoted) are not safe or effective. These include the famous “Master Cleanse”—also known as the “Lemonade Diet”. This “cleanse” requires high amounts of sugar (from maple syrup) to keep you going, and enough cayenne pepper to keep your body temperature high enough, as the body is starved of key nutrients. The same goes for “cleanses” consisting only of laxatives.

It’s also important that you choose a cleanse from a reliable company. It should have enough nutrients and vitamins to keep you energized and healthy while removing toxins from your body.

Good ingredients to look for include:

• herbs such as milk thistle, which detoxifies the liver
• fibre (soluble and insoluble) to bind to waste and carry it out of the body
• vitamins and minerals, which support the body’s normal processes
• protein and amino acids, to provide long-term energy
• antioxidants, which bind to harmful free radicals released in the cleansing process
• probiotics, to support the immune system

How do I cleanse?

Most cleanses require dietary restrictions. Basically, you don’t want to add toxins to your body when you’re trying to remove them.

Avoid:

• Alcohol
• Caffeine (including green tea, although herbal tea is usually allowed)
• Junk food
• Artificial colours, flavours, sweeteners or preservatives
• Dairy products (can be difficult to digest, and often have added hormones)
• Gluten (a difficult-to-digest protein found in wheat, spelt, kamut, rye, and other grains, pastas and cereals)

Reduce:

• Refined sugar
• Highly acidic foods, such as tomatoes and vinegars
• Red meats (often have added hormones)

All cleanses differ, but generally, foods allowed include:

• Lots of water! (and herbal tea)
• Lean protein, such as skinless chicken and fish (except for tuna due to mercury)
• Nuts and seeds (these provide long term energy and healthy fats)
• Fresh veggies (organic is best, to avoid pesticides)
• Fresh fruit
• Brown rice
• Beans, lentils and other legumes
• Herbs for seasoning

It’s important to stay motivated. Remember, it’s only one or two weeks long, and to get the benefits, its important to complete it. Try to get a friend or two on board with you, so you can motivate each other. And although it’s hard, when the cleanse is over, don’t go overboard on the junk food to make up for lost time! If you follow the rules and complete the program, your body will thank you and you’ll feel great.

Happy spring cleaning!

Humanity deposits many toxic substances under the ground. Most of those are radioactive materials, pesticides, heavy metals and other kind of poisonous wastes. Even if they are first deposited in lakes, rivers or the sea, waters transfer most of them in the soil, when the latter absorbs water. It happens the other way round as well, as chemicals within soil are transferred with the rain into marine ecosystems.

Soil contamination is as a serious problem as any other form of pollution, but it was discovered later than them. Although it is connected with water pollution, the procedure is slow, and at first not even plants show any difference to point out pollution. If not stopped in time, it leads to desertification and destruction of the whole ecosystem. Many species lose their habitat, face extinction, or accumulate toxic substances in their body and become infected and poisonous for their predators.

Top British climate scientist Professor James Lovelock FRS has warned that over 6 billion people will die this century due to unaddressed climate change. Already 16 million people die avoidably in the world each year due to deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease (see: “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007). It is already clear from declining agricultural production due to drought and massive storm surge disasters in India, Bangladesh, Burma and the US that global warming is already impacting on global avoidable mortality.

Greenhouse gas pollution – mostly due to carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuel burning – is driving global warming and attendant species extinctions, droughts, sea level rise, decreased agricultural production and increased human death. However a major reality that is generally ignored is the death toll associated with pollutants other than CO2 generated by fossil fuel burning, notably carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, particulates, volatile organic components, nitrogen oxides and heavy metals such as mercury. As outlined below an upper limit of about 0.3 million people die avoidably each year in the world due to the effects of toxic pollutants from fossil fuel burning.

The Ministry of Energy of Ontario, Canada, commissioned a report into “true cost” of coal-fired power plants i.e. the “true cost” taking into account the environmental cost and the human impact in terms of mortality (deaths) and morbidity (illness) (see: “Cost Benefit Analysis: Replacing Ontario’s Coal-Fired Electricity Generation” (PDF) by DSS Management Consultants Inc. and RWDI Air Inc., for the Ontario Ministry of Energy, April, 2005, 93 pages). The report found that the “true cost” of coal-based electricity was 4-5 times the “market price” depending upon whether one valued a human life at $4 million or $5 million.

Of crucial importance to analysis of human deaths from coal-based electricity generation, the Canadian report found that 668 Ontarians die due to 27 TWh (27 trillion Watt hours) of electricity generation (for a summary see: http://evworld.com).

Canada and Ontario in particular have excellent medical services that are readily accessed by all members of society. Further, the population density in Ontario is much lower than in other countries (indeed even continental Australia most of the coal-fired power stations and most of the population are confined to relatively densely populated coastal regions). Accordingly, estimates of “annual coal-based electricity deaths” in other countries based on the Ontario ratio of 668 avoidable deaths per annum /27 TWh = 24.7 deaths per TWh are likely to be UNDER-estimates.

Coal, gas and oil burning all produce toxic agents such as carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, particulates, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, volatile organic components and heavy metals, notably mercury (Hg) (see: http://dar.csiro.au/…/urbanpollution.html). Sulphur (S) content varies and mercury (Hg) pollution from combusted petroleum and natural gas is about 10 times less than that which derives from coal (66 Mg/y in the US); however this estimate was based on Hg from US fuel oil of 1,500 kg/y whereas the US EPA estimates Hg from fuel oil at 10,000 kg/y (10 Mg/y: http://www.epa.gov/…/.pdf).

We will initially ASSUME for arithmetic simplicity and “ball-park estimation” that the oil, gas and coal combustibles used to generate electricity are equally dirty in terms of toxic products and deadly impact – and then go back to assess coal-specific electricity generation using available data on the percentage of fossil–fuel-based electricity generation due to coal burning.

For authoritative information on energy usage we can refer to the US Energy Information Administration (US EIA) that reports official energy statistics from the US Government covering the last quarter century. For all US EIA International data see: http://eia.doe.gov/international and for US EIA data on 2005 thermal electricity production, see http://eia.doe.gov/…/electricitygeneration.html.

The Ontario Ministry of Energy study indicated 668 deaths /27 TWh of coal-based electricity generation = 24.7 deaths/TWh. Using this figure we can estimate annual deaths from fossil fuel-based electricity generation (assuming equality in toxicity of coal, oil and gas burning and other factors such as medical services, population density and environmental protection services). Since Canada has excellent, publicly-accessible medical services, low population density and good environmental protection our estimate for other countries will be under-estimated – however the assumption that coal-burning is no more toxic than the burning of other fossil fuels may lead to over-estimation of the death toll.

Before providing these mortality estimates for all major fossil fuel-burning nations, it is useful to compare the estimates of annual deaths from fossil fuel-based electricity generation (“annual fossil fuel-based electricity deaths”) with those from coal-based electricity generation (”annual coal-based electricity deaths”) for several key countries. Thus “annual fossil fuel-based electricity deaths” for the US, the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand are 71,877, 6,854, 5,394, 3,760 and 355, respectively (2005). These estimates are compared with estimates for “annual coal-based electricity deaths” for these countries.

The US “annual coal-based electricity deaths” have been estimated at 30,000 [2002]: “Coal-burning air pollution harms human heath in several different ways. Tiny particles of sulfur and nitrogen from coal burners lodge deep in our lungs, causing as many as 30,000 premature deaths per year, according to the most up-to-date study by EPA consultant Abt Associates“. According to Janet Larsen of The Earth Policy Institute it is 25,100 [2004]: “By moving beyond coal, the United States could avoid a legacy of smog-filled skies, acid rain, polluted waterways, contaminated fish, and scarred landscapes. This could each year save some 25,000 lives, reduce respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses, avert potential neurological damage for 630,000 babies, and erase a health care bill of over $160 billion”.

49% of US electricity of 4,065 TWh is from coal i.e. 1,991 TWh (2006: Sources: Wikipedia and EIA) indicating 49,153 [2006] ”annual coal-based electricity deaths” as compared to 71,887 “total annual fossil fuel-based electricity deaths”.

The UK produced 409 TWh of electricity in 2005 of which 33.6% was coal-based i.e. 137.4 TWh, this corresponding to 137.4 TWh x 668/27 TWh = 3,399 [2005] “annual coal-based electricity deaths” as compared to 6,854 “total annual fossil fuel-based electricity deaths”.

Australia produced 255 TWh of electricity in 2006 of which 92% was from fossil fuels and 77% was from burning black or brown coal, this yielding an estimate of 0.77 x 255 TWh x 668/27 TWh = 4,858[2006] ”annual coal-based electricity deaths” as compared to 0.77 x 5,394/0.92 = 4,515 [2005] ”annual coal-based electricity deaths” (see above) and total ”annual fossil fuel-based electricity deaths” of 5,395 (2005; see above).

Canada produced 567 TWh of electricity in 2003 of which 28% was from fossil fuels and 19% was from coal burning i.e.107.7 TWh and we can calculate 107.7 TWh x 668/27 TWh = 2,665 [2003] ”annual coal-based electricity deaths” as compared to 0.19 x 3,760/0.28= 2,551 [2005] ”annual coal-based electricity deaths” and 3,760 [2005] “total annual fossil fuel-based electricity deaths”.

New Zealand produced 41.6 TWh of electricity in 2005. In 2004, 73% of the total input into electricity generation was from renewable resources(predominantly hydro), 16% was from gas and 11% was from coal i.e. 4.6TWh (2005) corresponding to 114 [2005] “annual coal-based electricity deaths” as compared to 355 “total annual fossil fuel-based electricity deaths”.

It is useful to compare the above figures from the “Anglo” countries with those for the World and the major non-European Developing countries China and India using data from the US Energy Information Administration, the World Coal Institute and the Pew Centre on Climate Change (see: http://pewclimate.org/…/coalfacts.cfm). Thus the “total annual fossil fuel-based electricity deaths” for India, China and the World can be estimated to be 13,319, 47,477 and 282, 945, respectively. In India 69% of electricity is from coal i.e. 456.5 TWh/y corresponding to 11, 276 “annual coal-based electricity deaths”. In China about 80% of electricity is from coal, corresponding to 1,898 TWh/y and 46,868 “annual coal-based electricity deaths”. For the World as a whole coal provides 40% of the total electricity i.e. 6,940 TWh/y and corresponding to 171,418 “annual coal-based electricity deaths”.

The World is not responding to warnings from top climate scientists such as NASA’s Dr James Hansen and his colleagues who are calling for a “negative CO2 emissions” policy to reduce atmospheric CO2 to a safe level of no more than 350 ppm from the current already dangerous level of 385 ppm (see: http://arxiv.org/…/.pdf and http://mwcnews.net/…/23119/42/). The warnings of such eminent scientists are obfuscated by self-interested climate scepticism, especially from the leading per capita CO2 polluters, the US and Australia.

However the above analysis shows that there is a horrendous reality ALREADY of about 170,000 deaths annually throughout the world from the effects of coal-based electricity generation and as many as 0.3 million deaths annually from pollutants from fossil fuel-based electricity generation in general – a huge death toll that cannot be ignored. Please tell everyone you can.

Dr Gideon Polya published some 130 works in a 4 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text “Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds” (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London, 2003). He has just published “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://mwcnews.net and http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com);
see also his contribution “Australian complicity in Iraq mass mortality” in “Lies, Deep Fries & Statistics” (edited by Robyn Williams, ABC Books, Sydney, 2007). He is currently preparing a revised and updated version of his 1998 book “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History” as biofuel-, globalization- and climate-driven global food price increases threaten a possibly 100-fold greater famine catastrophe than the man-made famine in British-ruled India that killed 6-7 million Indians in the “forgotten” World War 2 Bengal Famine (see recent BBC broadcast involving Dr Polya, Economics Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen and others).

Visiting the shops means using means of transport, which burn fossil fuels and produce carbon dioxide,( sometimes monoxide which is worse), and other gases. These gases are the main factors that causes breathing problems, the greenhouse effect, and of course, global warming. Even if you shop online, transportations do take place, as the products come to you. It is an eco way of shopping only when done wisely.

Then it comes to the product itself. All products are sold into packaging, paper and plastic wrap. These materials, useless to the buyer, go straight to the rubbish dumps. The same thing happens with the products themselves. The one-use products, as all products in general, end up at the dumps shortly after their wrap. The more we buy, the more the dumps grow bigger and bigger.

But the worst part is what happens in the industrial world. Mass production during manufacture demands great amounts of energy, which means burning fuels. When we shop non- stop, products are in demand on the market all the time. So even bigger amounts of carbon dioxide and depositions reach the atmosphere and the sea.

And last but not least, many products contain animal by-products, such as fur or fat. Buying those products, which are common in the clothing and cosmetic fields, means that animals are tortured, usually to death, in order to satisfy the market’s demand.

So the point of all this, is that we have to categorise our purchases to really useful and useless, and try to focus only on the first category. Understanding the dramatic effects that over-shopping has on the Earth will help us take measures to reduce them.

“The scientists believe toxins and carcinogens found in polluted air can stop hair growing by blocking mechanisms that produce the protein from which hair is made. Baldness is known to be hereditary, but the new research suggests that environmental factors could exacerbate hair loss.”

Nilofer Farjo, a hair transplant doctor involved in the research, said that “this may lead to new methods of treating genetic hair loss. The research suggests that environmental factors like smoking and air pollution contribute to hair loss because they introduce elements that are harmful to the normal mechanisms by which the cells work.”

He continued by adding that “there’s undoubtedly genetics involved as well, but now we know there are environmental factors too. If you live in a place with cleaner air, you might be at less risk.”

The research suggests that pollution will only affect “male pattern baldness.” You can read more about this research over at the Telegraph.

Image credit: Mike Burns. Image licensed under a Attribution-Share Alike license.