80% of City Dwellers Breathing Dangerous Levels of Polluted Air, says WHO:-
Three million premature deaths caused by ambient air pollution occur each year because 80 percent of urban dwellers are exposed to dangerous levels of air pollution.
“Urban air pollution continues to rise at an alarming rate, wreaking havoc on human health,” Maria Neira, the head of WHO’s department of public health and environment, said in a statement.
The rising air pollution in urban cities is hurting millions worlwide, and it is worst in poorer countries, WHO notes. Those people effected usually succumb to death because of respiratory diseases, stroke, heart disease and lung cancer.
In UN’s latest air pollution data base, the report, which looked into data gathered from 795 cities in 67 countries between 2008 and 2013 conclude that four out of five city dwellers live with dangerously intoxicating air. The data examined PM10, particulate matter measuring less than 10µm, which can include dust, pollen and mould spores; and PM2.5, particles measuring less than 2.5µm.
The report also took into account the disparity between the rich and poorer nations. With the latter being 98% affected, while just 56 percent of people in rich countries were affected by the massive air pollution
Most of the low to middle income countries breathe air that exceed WHO’s safety standard.
The highest levels of small and fine particulate pollution, known as PM10 and PM2.5 respectively, were generally found the eastern Mediterranean and South-East Asia, with the average annual levels often exceeding five to 10 times the safe limits in low and middle-come states.
Dr. Carlos Dora of WHO emphasized the importance of eliminating industrial emissions to achive long-term improvement in cutting carbon emission, as well as utilizing green transport, solar and wind power.
In a press release, he said: “when air quality improves, health costs from air pollution-related diseases shrink, worker productivity expands and life expectancy grows. Reducing air pollution also brings an added climate bonus, which can become a part of countries’ commitments to the climate treaty.”
3 Recycling Trends You Need to Know Right Now
Reduce > Recycle > Reuse
The recent years have seen many exciting developments in the field of recycling. Many countries have taken the task of recycling their wastes while some countries seem to be having no success at all. As an individual, here are some things that you need to know about recycling – some latest trends that have been developing. Perhaps, you can implement these in your lifestyle and look forward to a better and waste-free planet Earth.
Plastic Bans
It’s not a mystery that most plastics take hundreds, if not a large number of years to photodegrade (which is still awful for the earth), or that they’re uncontrollably perilous to neighbourhood biological communities and untamed life. That is the reason numerous urban communities are beginning to address the plastic waste produced inside their outskirts.
Styrofoam specifically has been examined broadly, and cities and towns have been banning polystyrene. While it’s financially savvy and sufficiently robust for bundling, its light weight makes it inclined to being effortlessly spread by the wind, and it can leak styrene into the earth and groundwater.
Disallowances on Styrofoam, plastic shopping pack bans, and even bans on plastic bottles are ideally the push to eliminate unsustainable and pervasive plastics from earth’s surface.
Composting
Just 5% of the 26 million tonnes of sustenance waste in 2012 stayed away from a landfill. This implies there are still a large number of massive amounts of nourishment sitting at the base of a landfill that could have been transformed into a solid manure material for individual or city use. That is the reason more districts across the nation are beginning to make programs for natural material composting, and some are notwithstanding making it required.
3-D Printing
3-D printing has opened up ways to assembling that were at no other time thought to be opened: from business use and large scale manufacturing, even down to more private, individual use at home. 3-D printing innovation may even have the capacity to assemble a house in a day. Obviously, this innovation dangers expanding our reliance on plastic significantly further.
Thankfully, some are discovering crushed plastics from around your home – even used Legos and other plastic waste – can be a feasible alternative for printing. Certain reused plastics are less expensive per pound than virgin plastics at any rate. 3-D printing has endless positive applications, yet we ought to guarantee that the materials utilized are as economically sourced as could be allowed.
The Amount of Plastic Waste on Earth Is Enough to Wrap the Whole Planet
The amount of plastic wastes on the planet today is enough to cover the planet with plastic, according to an Australian organization. With 5 billion tons of plastic waste it looks like it is true.
Man begun producing plastic on the onset of the 20th century and since then there were 5 billion tons of plastic wastes.
This problem is so alarming that paleontologist, Jan Zalasiewicz, said that if the plastic wastes will be transformed into a cling wrap, it will be enough to cover the globe.
That’s why experts are hoping that mankind to seriously consider the conservation of our planet.
One possible solution is to increase recycling rate when it comes to plastic. Another is to lessen or even deviate from producing non-biodegradable plastics.
The scenario of future generation unearthing fossilized plastic is appalling. This is the consequence for man’s penchant to produce too much plastic without thinking about disposal.
During the latest flight of Solar Impulse over the Pacific, the pilot has had an alarming view. Pilot Bertrand Piccard said he passed by a sea of plastic wastes which is as large as a continent which goes to show that this is indeed a global problem visible in all parts of the world.
Environmental Impact on Health:-
Note – Datas are important in this case which can be quoted to write answers which will be more authentic than just stating a statement that is not backed up by data.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
Petrol in India is cheaper than in countries like Hong Kong, Germany and the UK but costlier than in China, Brazil, Japan, the US, Russia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, a Bank of Baroda Economics Research report showed.
Rising fuel prices in India have led to considerable debate on which government, state or central, should be lowering their taxes to keep prices under control.
The rise in fuel prices is mainly due to the global price of crude oil (raw material for making petrol and diesel) going up. Further, a stronger dollar has added to the cost of crude oil.
Amongst comparable countries (per capita wise), prices in India are higher than those in Vietnam, Kenya, Ukraine, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Venezuela. Countries that are major oil producers have much lower prices.
In the report, the Philippines has a comparable petrol price but has a per capita income higher than India by over 50 per cent.
Countries which have a lower per capita income like Kenya, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, and Venezuela have much lower prices of petrol and hence are impacted less than India.
“Therefore there is still a strong case for the government to consider lowering the taxes on fuel to protect the interest of the people,” the report argued.
India is the world’s third-biggest oil consuming and importing nation. It imports 85 per cent of its oil needs and so prices retail fuel at import parity rates.
With the global surge in energy prices, the cost of producing petrol, diesel and other petroleum products also went up for oil companies in India.
They raised petrol and diesel prices by Rs 10 a litre in just over a fortnight beginning March 22 but hit a pause button soon after as the move faced criticism and the opposition parties asked the government to cut taxes instead.
India imports most of its oil from a group of countries called the ‘OPEC +’ (i.e, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Russia, etc), which produces 40% of the world’s crude oil.
As they have the power to dictate fuel supply and prices, their decision of limiting the global supply reduces supply in India, thus raising prices
The government charges about 167% tax (excise) on petrol and 129% on diesel as compared to US (20%), UK (62%), Italy and Germany (65%).
The abominable excise duty is 2/3rd of the cost, and the base price, dealer commission and freight form the rest.
Here is an approximate break-up (in Rs):
a)Base Price | 39 |
b)Freight | 0.34 |
c) Price Charged to Dealers = (a+b) | 39.34 |
d) Excise Duty | 40.17 |
e) Dealer Commission | 4.68 |
f) VAT | 25.35 |
g) Retail Selling Price | 109.54 |
Looked closely, much of the cost of petrol and diesel is due to higher tax rate by govt, specifically excise duty.
So the question is why government is not reducing the prices ?
India, being a developing country, it does require gigantic amount of funding for its infrastructure projects as well as welfare schemes.
However, we as a society is yet to be tax-compliant. Many people evade the direct tax and that’s the reason why govt’s hands are tied. Govt. needs the money to fund various programs and at the same time it is not generating enough revenue from direct taxes.
That’s the reason why, govt is bumping up its revenue through higher indirect taxes such as GST or excise duty as in the case of petrol and diesel.
Direct taxes are progressive as it taxes according to an individuals’ income however indirect tax such as excise duty or GST are regressive in the sense that the poorest of the poor and richest of the rich have to pay the same amount.
Does not matter, if you are an auto-driver or owner of a Mercedes, end of the day both pay the same price for petrol/diesel-that’s why it is regressive in nature.
But unlike direct tax where tax evasion is rampant, indirect tax can not be evaded due to their very nature and as long as huge no of Indians keep evading direct taxes, indirect tax such as excise duty will be difficult for the govt to reduce, because it may reduce the revenue and hamper may programs of the govt.